"He Who Shall Not Be Fact Checked" (January 28, 2010 Draft Revision 1/15/11)

“HE WHO SHALL NOT BE FACT CHECKED”
The Center for a New American Security’s (CNAS) Andrew Exum and the Whitewash of
Gen. Stanley McChrystal’s Role in the Cover-Up of Pat Tillman’s Friendly-Fire Death
*** INCOMPLETE DRAFT POSTED 4-13-11** Guy Montag @ feralfirefighter.blogspot.com
January 15, 2011 [Rough Draft 10-31-09]
Nathaniel Fick, CEO CNAS General Stanley McChrystal Andrew Exum, CNAS Fellow
―The bottom line is, nothing is ever going to heal the wounds inflicted on the Tillman Family … And
while I have nothing but respect for the Tillman Family…, their personal grief should not be a veto on the
nomination of the man [Gen. Stanley McChrystal] the president, the Secretary of Defense, and General
Petraeus all feel gives the United States and its allies the best chance of victory in Afghanistan … These
are serious questions and are more important than either the death of Pat Tillman or the alleged abuse of
detainees.‖
-- Andrew Exum, ―Confirm Him‖ (June 2, 2009)
―When reporting as a ―journalist‘ for the army, you quickly learn there is no news but good news. … I
put my Ivy League English degree to use writing shallow propaganda. … I made it a game to see just
how falsely positive I could be. … the Dept. of Public Affairs in Washington DC named me one of the
army‘s ―Outstanding Journalists.‖ … I had earned my first medal from the army for writing in a
newspaper.‖
-- Andrew Exum, ―This Man‘s Army‖ (2004)
―They ought to make a movie about this. Mr. Smith comes to Washington.‖ ―Yeah, I called my pa last
night and he says, ―Judd boy, you been up there with them muck-a-mucks two days, now. Did they
teach you how to lie yet?‖
-- Senator James Webb, ―A Country Such As This‖ (1983)
He Who Shall Not Be Fact Checked
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page #:
Foreword
Letter to Nathaniel Fick, CEO CNAS [Draft: October 31, 2009]
...
Spring 2009: ―Generation Kill‖ 53
June 2, 2009: ―Confirm Him [Gen. Stanley McChrystal]‖ 58
June/July 2009: ―Abu Muqawama Goes All Mushy on McChrystal‖ 81

...
Sept. 13, 2009: ―Blame to Share on a Book Review‖ 85
Nov. 2, 2009: ―On Martial Virtue ... and Selling 98

Jon Krakauer's Crappy New Book‖
Nov. 9, 2009: ―He Who Shall Not Be Fact Checked‖ 124
Nov. 23, 2009: ―Public Service Announcement‖ 146

...
May 28, 2010: "Dulce Et Decorum Est Pro Patria Et Religione Mori‖151
June 23, 2010: ―L'Affair Rolling Stan‖ 158
July 13, 2010: Roy Exum: ―I Refuse to Watch It‖ 169
―Throwing My Shoe at Bob Woodward … Not‖

Dec. 13, 2010: 177
...
“SEMPER FIDELIS!” –―Maybe It Had Been Trash from the Get-Go, Myths to Feed the Public‖ 184
2
APPENDICES
Page #:
A: “Generation Kill”
The 'It' Think Tank (June 7, 2009)
CNAS Annual Conference (June 10, 2009)
A Warrior and a Wonk [CNAS CEO Nate Fick] (Oct. 20, 2009)
#42! (Oct. 13, 2009)
AM Founder Andrew Exum Joins CNAS (March 16, 2009)

Leading Counterinsurgency Blog Launched on CNAS (June 8, 2009)
Notes from “This Man‟s Army” (Andrew Exum, 2004)
B: “Confirm Him”
McChrystal Represents a New Direction… (May 18, 2009)
McKiernan Out, McChrystal In (May 12, 2009)
Commander's Intent: Lt. Gen. Stanley McChrystal (May 12, 2009)
Nomination … Revives Questions in Tillman Case. (May 26, 2009)

Did They Teach You How to Lie Yet ?[Senator Webb] (May 27, 2009)
Confirm Him (June 2, 2009)

Gen. McChrystal‟s Senate Confirmation Hearing (June 2, 2009)
C: “Lies Borne Out by Facts … If Not the Truth”

Nominee To Command USAF Stresses Civilian Safety (June 2, 2009)
Killing Bad Guys Civilians (June 3, 2009)
Lies Borne Out by Facts … If Not the Truth (Sept. 11, 2009)
NYT‟s Thom Shanker Joins CNAS as Writer in Residence (Oct. 15, 2009)
Civil-Military Relations in the Obama Era (May 17, 2010)

Journalist FAIL (June 15, 2010)
Rolling Stone (June 22, 2010)
Beers on the Table (June 25, 2010)
A New Standard for Objective Journalism at the CJR? (Aug. 2, 2010)
Incorporating DA Special Operations into COIN (Aug. 2, 2010)
On Bacevich, Part I (Sept. 6, 2010)
3
Page #:
D: “Abu Muqawama Goes All Mushy on McChrystal”
Anyone Been Unlucky to Have Participated in All Five? (June 9, 2009)
The 50 Most Powerful People In DC (November 2009)
Hiatus (June 23, 2009)
Back from Afghanistan (July 22, 2009)

Abu Muqawama Goes All Mushy on McChrystal (July 24, 2009)
Strange Contradictions of Exum‟s Afghan. Trip (July 29, 2009)
How I Spent My Summer (Sept. 21, 2009)
E: “Blame to Share on a Book Review”
He Didn‟t Come Home (Sept. 13, 2009)

Blame to Spare on a Book Review (Nov. 15, 2009)
Notes from “Where Men Win Glory‖ (Jon Krakauer, 2009/2010)
F: “On Martial Virtue ... and Selling Jon Krakauer's Crappy New Book”
Storms, Teapots, etc. (Oct. 6, 2009)
Gen. McChrystal‟s Credibility Problem (Oct. 15, 2009)
Jon Krakauer Interviewed on Meet the Press (Nov. 1, 2009)
On Martial Virtue ... Jon Krakauer's Crappy New Book (Nov. 2, 2009)
Guy Montag & Other‟s Comments on AM‟s Blog Post (Nov. 2, 2009)
G: “He Who Shall Not Be Fact Checked”

The Financial World Meets Robert Fisk (Oct. 8, 2009)
He Who Shall Not Be Fact-Checked (Nov. 9, 2009)
Abu Muqawama Sells Out! (Dec. 3, 2009)

Journalist FAIL (June 15, 2010)
On Bacevich, Part I (Sept. 6, 2010)
From the Dept. of Intellectual Dishonesty (Sept. 29, 2010)
On Corruption (And Admitting When You're Wrong) (Sept. 13, 2010)
Journalist/Soldier? [Carl Prine] (July 2, 2007)

Tales of Our Time: How Not Enter a Valley In Afghanistan (Sept. 11, 2009)
4
Page #:
H: “Public Service Announcement”
Public Service Announcement (Nov. 23, 2009)
Catching Up (Dec. 28, 2009)

Abu Mugawama on Twitter (Feb. 5, 2010)
Why We Can't Have Pretty Things (March 15, 2010)
Writing Hiatus (May 18, 2010)
...
I: "Dulce Et Decorum Est Pro Patria Et Religione Mori”

Jon Krakauer‟s Inside Story of Pat Tillman (Sept.11, 2009)
Quote of the Day (March 9, 2010)
2nd Lt. Janell Peske, USMC (May 28, 2010)
A Mujahid's Wish From His Mother (Nov. 11, 2010)
J: “L'Affair Rolling Stan”

Rolling Stone (June 22, 2010)

Firing McChrystal: Weighing the Risks (June 22, 2010)
Three Options for the President (June 22, 2010)
McChrystal Out, Petraeus In (June 24, 2010)

McChrystal as Cantona (June 24, 2010)
Beers on the Table (June 25, 2010)
Sunday McChrystal Round-Up … (June 27, 2010)
K: “I Refuse to Watch It”

A Special Book Review (Sept. 19, 2009)
I Refuse to Watch It (July 13, 2010)
Kagan Squared on Afghanistan (Jan. 10, 2011)
Who is Roy Exum? (Feb. 05, 2010)
5
Page #:
L: “Throwing My Shoe at Bob Woodward … Not”

On Woodward's Book: A (Very Minor) Clarification (Sept. 27, 2010)
On Woodward's Book: Heroes and Villains? (Oct. 2, 2010)
Talk of the Nation: Bob Woodward‟s “Obama‟s Wars” (Dec. 13, 2010)
Woodward, Barno and Some Other Guy on Afghanistan (Dec. 6, 2010)

Responsible Transition: Watch LIVE (Dec. 14, 2010)
Afghanistan Trip Report, Part III… (Dec. 16, 2010)
Rebuttal of Bob Woodward‟s Whitewash of McChrystal (Jan. 16, 2011)
Notes from “Obama‟s Wars” (Bob Woodward, 2010)
...
M: “Semper Fidelis!”-- “Maybe It Was Trash from the Get-Go, Myths to Feed the Public”
Jon Krakauer‟s Inside Story of Pat Tillman (Sept. 11, 2009)
Quote of the Day (March 9, 2010)
The One Percent Problem (Dec. 17, 2010)
Subordinates, How Not to Treat Your (April 26, 2010)

2nd Lt. Janell Peske, USMC (May 28, 2010)
Four Days Later (Nov. 23, 2010)
In Praise of Junior Officers (Dec. 22, 2010)
6
FOREWORD
*** Incomplete Draft 4-13-11 ***
I read Andrew Exum‘s September 13th Washington Post book review of Jon Krakauer‘s ―Where Men
Win Glory‖ the same day it was published. What struck me the most was that Exum began his review
with his personal account of watching the Tillman firefight on a Predator video feed at Bagram. He
actually provided evidence for a ―conspiracy theory‖ while at the same time, he dismissed Krakauer
as a conspiracy nut!
After doing a little digging, it rapidly became apparent that Exum had close personal and professional
ties with General McChrystal. It certainly looked as though Exum may have written his book review
to protect McChrystal from scrutiny about his role in the Tillman case.
A few days later, Roy Exum (father) wrote his column referring to his son‘s book review. I emailed
Roy expressing my concerns. That email was the beginning of this documents ―Where Men Win
Glory.‖
I did research during October and had finished a very rough draft of my letter to Nate Fick. When
Exum wrote his ―On Martial Virtue‖ blog post, I responded with a lengthy comment pointing
explaining Exum‘s conflicts of interest and McChrystal‘s guilt.
During November, I replied to a few more of Exum‘s posts. Just before Thanksgiving, Exum
announced his ―retirement‖ from blogging. Exum‘s blog is widely read in Washington, and I suspect
that perhaps Nate Fick thought that Exum‘s blog posts about McChrystal could draw unwelcome
attention just when CNAS‘s push to get Obama to approve the Afghan surge was approaching.
...
In the following sections, you can read Exum‘s book review, his ―Abu Mugawama‖ blog posts and
my Comments as ―Guy Montag.‖ There is also an article by Jon Krakauer on McChrystal‘s role
(apparently based largely on my material sent to Krakauer on September 17th; never received any
acknowledgement from him) and the Washington post correction of Exum‘s book review.
7
Letter to Nathaniel Fick, CEO of the

Center for a New American Security (CNAS)
―From the time I was very little, I was aware of my father‘s pride in being a Marine. When I was three
years old … I would stand between my parents, feet digging into the soft leather of the big front seat, and
sing the entire Marine Corps Hymn at the top of my lungs.‖
-- Mary Tillman, ―Boots on the Ground by Dusk‖ (2008)
...
October 31, 2009 [Revised 1-11-11]
Nathaniel Fick,
*** Incomplete Draft 4-13-11**
*** 2004 frat, Background Mc nominated, Shanker article, June hearing, Nov plan approved by
Obama.
Andrew Exum is a Fellow at your Washington think-tank Center for a New American Security
(CNAS) which has been called "Washington's go-to think tank on military affairs." CNAS has
spearheaded the advocacy of the Afghan war "surge" and has close ties with both General
McChrystal and his mentor General Petraeus. During your GQ interview, you said: ―We've sent
one of our fellows, Andrew Exum, to serve on General McChrystal's assessment team, and we
meet with General McChrystal via videoconference once a week to talk about strategy there.‖
In 2002, Andrew Exum served as an infantry LT in Afghanistan (described in his book ―This
Man‘s Army‖) and again with the Ranger RGT in 2004. Last year, you were ―named one of
GQ's 50 most powerful people in Washington.‖ During 2003, you led a Marine Recon platoon
during the invasion of Iraq (as described in your fine book ―One Bullet Away,‖ in Evan Wright‘s
―Generation Kill, ‖ and HBO‘s excellent ―Generation Kill‖ mini-series). You both appeared to
be excellent LTs ―back in the day.‖
In his September 13th 2009 Washington Post review of Jon Krakauer‘s book, ―Where Men Win
Glory – The Odyssey of Pat Tillman,‖ Andrew Exum dismissed the notion of a ―conspiracy‖ to
cover-up Pat Tillman‘s friendly fire death and excused the actions by his fellow Ranger officers
as a ―gross error of judgment‖ (General McChrystal was not mentioned at all). However, Exum
failed to disclose his close personal and professional ties with McChrystal which created a
serious conflict of interest. *** upon examination appears that is review was a whitewash to
protect Ranger officers and M4 undermine Krakauer's credibility and subvert his valid criticisms
of a military leader who is the leading advocate for escalating the war in Afghanistan.
8
**** fan, hope have sons, selected as civilian advisor
On November 1st 2009 "Meet the Press,‖ (and his October 14th 2009 ―Daily Beast‖ article) Jon
Krakauer accused General McChrystal of lying about his central role in the Army‘s cover-up of
Pat Tillman‘s friendly-fire death. In response, Andrew Exum posted, ―On Martial Virtue … and
Selling Jon Krakauer‘s Crappy New Book,‖ writing, ―Stan McChrystal stands out as … probably
the least culpable guy in Tillman‘s chain of command … Stan McChrystal is one of the finest
men I have ever known, and I hope I have sons who serve under men like him.‖ Well, as one
blogger commented, ―Phew, talk about a man crush.‖
...
The New York Times also played a role in whitewashing McChrystal. Last May, their Pentagon
Reporter Thom Shanker wrote a May 26th 2009 NYT article that ―exonerated‖ McChrystal of all
wrongdoing in the Tillman case despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Just before
McChrystal's Senate confirmation hearing, I corresponded with Shanker and pointed out how his
article was full of "lies ... borne out by facts, if not the truth‖ (Thom Shanker also participated in
the 2003 Jessica Lynch misinformation).
Thom Shanker (and the NYTs) appear to have enjoyed exceptionally good access to McChyrstal
and other top military leaders. Ironically, this past November, Thom Shanker became a "writer
in residence" at your own CNAS to “work on his book entitled "Counterstrike” and by “working
closely with CNAS scholars and leadership, Writers in Residence can take advantage of the full
spectrum of the Center’s resources and expertise.”
Isn't the Washington establishment so cozy? What's the difference between the media, the
government, and the "independent" think-tanks such as your CNAS? They appear to be all part
of one big incestous establishment blob!
*** most culpable
***** insert Book Review from below
**** insert Martial Virtue from below
*** Lies and truth
*** or put details in each section?
*** Semper Fidelis
9
...
**** Semper Fidelis ***
I had believed that Andrew Exum and CNAS were part of the bipartisan ―conspiracy‖ that has
protected General McChrystal and that Exum wrote his book review to whitewash General
McChrystal‘s role. Now, I believe Andrew Exum is either awfully good at feigning self-
righteous outrage or is woefully (and willfully) ignorant of the most basic facts of the Tillman
case. It‘s possible Exum believes his own bullshit about General McChrystal. As the saying
goes, "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not
understanding it."
**** father refuses to watch movie, projection accuses others of own sins.
Regardless, both Exum and CNAS obviously had personal and professional conflicts of interests
with Exum writing a book review favorable to the Army and General McChrystal. Clearly,
despite (or because of) his background as an Army Ranger officer in Afghanistan, he was a poor
choice to review Jon Krakauer‘s book. Apparently Exum hasn‘t forgotten lessons learned from
his stint as an Army journalist. In ―This Man‘s Army‖ he wrote,
―When reporting as a ―journalist‘ for the army, you quickly learn there is no news but
good news. … I put my Ivy League English degree to use writing shallow propaganda.
… I made it a game to see just how falsely positive I could be. … At the end of the
summer, the Dept of Public Affairs in Washington DC named me one of the army‘s
―Outstanding Journalists.‖ … I had earned my first medal from the army for writing in a
newspaper.‖
I‘m disappointed by the lack of integrity displayed by Exum‘s involvement in the Tillman cover-
up. Perhaps that‘s to be expected once you leave your uniform behind, become a ―suit‖ and
become part of the politics of Washington. As Exum wrote in his book, ―… officers are often
looking out for their own futures rather than for the safety and good of their men.‖
*****
―After we returned from that mission, the higher-ranking officers and sergeants major
fretted over what the reporters might write in their stories … The seven of us were told to
complete sworn statements about what happened … It was complete bullshit. If the
reporter‘s story was negative, the officers could use our statements as proof that the army
had already taken action and was on its way toward prosecuting the offenders … We had
done nothing wrong, as they covered their asses collecting our sworn statements, they
assured us of that.‖
10
328 ―From the moment you first join the Ranger Battalion, it‘s ingrained in you that you will
always do the right thing. … Then you see something like what they‘re doing to Pat – what
officers in the Ranger Regiment are doing – and you stop being so naïve. The only two times
where I personally was in a position to see where the Army had the choice to do the right thing
or the wrong thing, both times they chose to do the wrong thing. One of those times was what
they did to Pat. It made me realize that the Army does what suits the Army. That‘s why I won‘t
put that uniform back on. I‘m done.‖ -- SGT Mel Ward
*******
So much for your Marines Corp‘s motto of ―semper fidelis‖ and Exum‘s Ranger Creed, ―Never
shall I fail my comrades‖! Neither you nor Exum have had the back of the Tillman family.
...
Sincerely,
Guy Montag
SGT, Co. ―F‖ (Ranger), 425th Infantry MI ARNG 1983 – 1991

Firefighter, 1991 -- Present
11
“GENERATION KILL”
In the Bush years, AEI wielded significant influence and helped develop major initiatives on
national security, including the surge in Iraq. In the era of Obama, however, the Center for a
New American Security (CNAS) may emerge as Washington's go-to think tank on military
affairs.
CNAS has elicited some criticism for its heavy emphasis on counterinsurgency doctrine, but its
growing clout is undeniable. Then presidential candidate Hillary Clinton was the keynote
speaker at CNAS‘s inception last year. Founded in 2007, CNAS has already filled key posts in
the new administration. The organization has the benefit of senior brass who are attached to its
efforts. The organization is backed by a mix of military, private and corporate donors.
In June 2009, during their annual conference expected to attract about 1500 guests, CNAS
presented its report,"Triage: The Next Twelve Months in Afghanistan and Pakistan," written by
Andrew Exum, Nathaniel Fick, Ahmed Humayun and Kilcullen. The keynote speaker was none
other than General David Petraeus, CENTCOM commander.
...
At age 32, Nathaniel Fick is the CEO of CNAS. He served in Baghdad as a Marine captain —
and wrote a New York Times best-selling book, One Bullet Away, about the experience (HBO‘s
miniseries Generation Kill is also based on his platoon). Fick spoke at the 2008 Democratic
National Convention. He‘s on GQ‘s list [#42] of the 50 Most Powerful People in D.C.
...
In March 2009, Andrew Exum joined CNAS as a Fellow who focuses on the Middle East
region, irregular warfare and Afghanistan. CNAS President John Nagl said, "Andrew Exum is
one of the world's brightest thinkers and practitioners on irregular warfare...‖ His blog, Abu
Muqawama, is considered a ―must-visit daily‖ blog in defense policy circles. It receives over
6,000 visitors a day from across the world and has been cited frequently.
Exum served on active duty in the U.S. Army from 2000 until 2004. He led a platoon of the 10th
Mountain infantry in Afghanistan in 2002 (recounted in his 2004 book, This Man's Army: A
Soldier's Story from the Frontlines of the War on Terror) and a platoon of Army Rangers in Iraq
and Afghanistan in 2003 and 2004, respectively.
Exum served as an advisor on the CENTCOM assessment team and as a ―civilian advisor‖ on
Gen. McChrystal‘s Afghan assessment team in June 2009. He has published opinion pieces in
the New York Times, the Washington Post and has made numerous media appearances.
12
―CONFIRM HIM”
On May 11, 2009 President Obama nominated Gen. Stanley McChrystal to be the new Afghan
War commander. In response, Andrew Exum wrote,
―… let's not beat around the bush: Gen. McKiernan was fired -- and fired in a very
public manner. … Damn. This tells me that President Obama, Secretary Gates, and Gen.
Petraeus are as serious as a heart attack … There was very little confidence that -- with
McKiernan in charge in Afghanistan -- we the United States had the varsity squad on the
field. That all changed today. I do not know if the war in Afghanistan is winnable. But
I do know that Stan McChrystal is an automatic starter in anyone's line-up. Game on.‖
From 2003 to 2008, McChrystal led the Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC). Andrew
Exum wrote, ―I do know that many policy-makers and journalists think that McChrystal's work
as the head of the super-secret Joint Special Operations Command was the untold success story
of the Surge and the greater war on terror campaigns.‖
In addition to his black-ops experience, McChrystal has done stints as a fellow at Harvard and
the Council on Foreign Relations. His latest assignment was at the Pentagon, as Director of the
Joint Staff. Andrew Exum said, ―…General McChrystal is not a knuckle-dragging, door-kicking
Army Ranger … He's a very thoughtful general. … There is a realization that the situation in
Afghanistan is so dire … that you really need a silver bullet," Exum said. "You have one chance
to get this right, and you'd better get your A-team on the field."
...
On June 2, 2009 the Senate Armed Services Committee held their confirmation hearing for Gen.
McChrystal‘s nomination as the new Afghan War commander. In his blog post, ―Confirm
Him,‖ Andrew Exum supported Gen. McChrystal‘s confirmation:
―… while I have nothing but respect for the Tillman Family and their incredible sacrifice,
their personal grief should not be a veto on the nomination of the man the president, the
Secretary of Defense, and General Petraeus all feel gives the United States and its allies
the best chance of victory in Afghanistan … These are serious question and are more
important than either the death of Pat Tillman or the alleged abuse of detainees. … The
bottom line is, nothing is ever going to heal the wounds inflicted on the Tillman Family
by the death of Ranger Tillman and the government's clumsy handling of the situation. …
In the end, the Senate should put General McChrystal through the wringer today … And
then they should confirm him.‖
13
―And with respect to the Tillman Affair (full disclosure: I was in Afghanistan, with the
Rangers, at the time, so I am hardly objective here), McChrystal was by all accounts not
one of the officers in the chain of command who made really egregious errors or
misjudgments -- he even warned off his high command from turning Ranger Tillman into
some great hero before all the facts were in. Those who did make mistakes have by now
been properly censured.‖
...
However, it appears that Andrew Exum was either woefully (willfully?) ignorant of the facts of
the Tillman case or was doing his part to whitewash Gen. McChrystal‘s key role in the Army‘s
cover-up of Pat Tillman‘s friendly-fire death in 2004 (see also his 11-02-09 blog post ‗On
Martial Virtue …‖) Everything he said about the Tillman case was incorrect:
1.) Far from“McChrystal was by all accounts not one of the officers in the chain of command
who made really egregious errors or misjudgments,” McChrystal played a central hands-on role
in the Army‘s cover-up.
It was hardly “by all accounts‖ McChrystal was cleared of wrong-doing. In her book, Boots on
the Ground by Dusk, Mary Tillman wrote in her book, ―Not only is he [McChrystal] lying about
the circumstances surrounding Pat‘s death, … he is proposing false language for the Silver Star
narrative.‖
And, in his paperback edition of his book, Where Men Win Glory, Jon Krakauer described how
McChrystal personally "administered the medal recommendation process" with a false narrative
that "was painstakingly written to create the impression Pat Tillman was killed by enemy fire"
and directly supervised the Ranger RGT commanders who apparently altered the two Silver Star
witness statements. The Silver Star recommendation was "fraudulent" by "any objective
measure." Instead of merely having "signed off" on a piece of paper that landed on his desk,
Gen. McChrystal had "orchestrate[d] what can only be described as a broad conspiracy to
conceal Tillman's fratricide ..."
2.) And it‘s simply false that McChrystal “… even warned off his high command from turning
Ranger Tillman into some great hero before all the facts were in.”
McChrystal himself turned Tillman into a hero with his false Silver Star recommendation. True,
McChrystal did send a P4 memo ―warning‖ President Bush to avoid referencing Tillman‘s
heroism. But that was a week after the 15-6 investigating officer CPT Scott verbally passed
confirmation of friendly-fire up the chain of command to McChrystal. Some ―warning‖!
3.) Exum falsely asserted that, ―Those who did make mistakes have by now been properly
censured.”
14
True, Gen. Kensinger lost a star (and a little retirement pay) as the Army‘s designated scapegoat.
But, what happened to the Ranger RGT officers who had their "hands-on" the ensuing cover-up? COL
Nixon got his star. LTC Bailey got full-bird (recently got his star). LTC Kauzlarich got full-bird. And,
Gen. McChrystal was promoted three times ending up as a four-star.
Meanwhile, what happened to platoon leader LT Uthlaut (First Captain, top of his West Point Class)
who was ordered to split his platoon and ―put boots on the ground by dusk‖ over his protests? He was
offered up as a low-ranking scapegoat and kicked out of the Ranger Battalion for his ―failure‖ to control
his platoon during the Pat Tillman's ―friendly fire‖ incident (Uthlaut was shot in the face by the same
friendly fire that killed Pat Tillman and medivaced).
4.) “full disclosure: I was in Afghanistan, with the Rangers, at the time, so I am hardly
objective here …”
Exactly. Exum was ―hardly objective here‖ given that he was a Ranger officer serving under the
same Ranger RGT officers who had their hands-on the Tillman cover-up. It‘s not surprising that
Exum would make excuses or cover for his fellow Ranger officers.
...
**** Add old or UTS version of teach to lie yet

Did They Teach You How to Lie Yet? (May 27, 2009)
Senate hearing June 2
AND place into Appendices 1 page summary of each about letter sent
15
“COURT STENOGRAPHER IN RESIDENCE”
Thom Shanker covers national security and the Pentagon for The New York Times. He joined The
Times in 1997, and was assistant Washington editor before being named Pentagon correspondent
in 2001. In Afghanistan, he was the first newspaper reporter since Vietnam to be allowed to
embed with Army Special Forces in combat, joining Green Berets at Kandahar, and has since
embedded with numerous units in Iraq and Afghanistan. … He is a member of the Council on
Foreign Relations.
*** May 26th, June 2nd, Lies borne out, missing article
During November 2009, Eric Schmitt and Thom Shanker joined CNAS as Senior Writers in
Residence; ―Working closely with CNAS scholars and leadership, Writers in Residence can take
advantage of the full spectrum of the Center‘s resources and expertise. …‖ During their stay at
CNAS, they worked on a book titled Counterstrike, an examination of special operations
counterterrorism in Afghanistan and Iraq.
...
"I really respect the men and women who report on national security issues for our daily
newspapers and still subscribe to an old-fashioned newspaper that arrives on my doorstep each
morning."
Well, I don't have any respect for New York Times Washington Pentagon reporter Thom
Shanker. … I corresponded with him last year just before Gen. McChrystal's Senate
confirmation hearing. I pointed out just how McChrystal played the central role in the
Army's whitewash of the Tillman case. What did he do with it? Nothing, just printed the
same falsehoods (although the NYT "disappeared" his hearing article shortly after it
appeared on the blogosphere).
...
“Alter's „journalism‟ more closely resembles court stenography than a public service.”
Carl Prine: Coming from a CNAS voice, that's rich. Perhaps CENTCOM might get him
to join a Joint Strategic Assessment Team or pen books while serving fellowships at the
think tank. That will cure his ethical ailments. Are you serious?
Nice, subtle poke at AM and the NYT's Thom Shanker.
Last fall, Shanker worked on his book while a "writer in residence" at CNAS. Last year,
he wrote a piece clearing McChrystal of all wrongdoing in the aftermath of Tillman's
death. ("May 26, 2009 - "Nomination of U.S. Afghan Commander Revives Questions in
16
Tillman Case") despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. There's some

stenography for you!
...
"What the hell was Duncan Boothby thinking setting up this article with a freelance writer (who
can burn bridges more easily than someone at, say, the New York Times) who already has bias
against the strategy? This is just awful media management, because the writer neither gives a
flip as to whether or not his article might complicate the success of the mission nor has any
interest in lending any balance to his own conclusions. Head slap."
Exactly. Why risk talking to someone you can't count on being a stenographer for the
powers-that-be? Perhaps AM's was referring to Thom Shanker when he wrote "someone
At, say, the New York Times"?
Thom Shanker is the NYT Washington Pentagon Reporter who wrote the May 26th
article that "exonerated" Gen. McChrystal of all wrong-doing in the Tillman case.
Absolute BS, of which Shanker is well aware. But, apparently this sucking up is
necessary to retain "access". What a piece of work.
...
“… this would likely not have happened had Michael Hastings, the Rolling Stone reporter, not
been a free-lance. The logic is that a reporter from the New York Times or the Washington Post
would have been more servile to the people they cover because they do not want to burn their
sources. After enduring some members of the White House press corps who do, frankly, seem to
exchange favorable coverage of the administration for access, I can understand their
complaint.‖
“You don't think that a journalist covering the war in Afghanistan who feels the war should be
undermined in any way possible is slightly problematic given the American tradition of
objectivity in journalism?...”
Your post [―A New Standard for Objective Journalism at the CJR?‖] bemoaned the lack
of "objective" journalism.
Thom Shanker is a perfect example of such journalism as stenography, never subjecting

the lies of his sources to critical analysis, no matter how stupid. You mentioned Thom's
working on a book on special operations. He spent a month as a "writer-in-residence" last
November at CNAS working on that book. A little payback for his 5-26-09 NYT article
"exonerating" Gen. McChrystal of all wrong-doing in the Tillman case?
17
Abu Muqawama Goes All Mushy on McChrystal
After Gen. McChrystal‘s June 2, 2009 Senate confirmation of his promotion to commander
of the Afghan war, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates gave him 60 days to conduct another
review of the American strategy there, the fifth since President Barack Obama took office
less than five months ago.
McChrystal selected Andrew Exum to serve on his Afghan assessment team and he spent a
month ―touring Afghanistan by periscope‖ with a ―… dozen talented and good-natured co-
authors (and the world's most intense lead author [General McChrystal]) who put up with my
smart-assery -- often in enclosed spaces -- for a whole month.‖
Exum was ―… was tremendously impressed by the quality of the men and women working for
General McChrystal at ISAF. … General McChrystal has assembled a team of smart officers
and advisers who understand the challenges of Afghanistan and are willing to speak unpleasant
truths. Many of these officers are indeed men who served with McChrystal in either the Ranger
Regiment or the Joint Special Operations Command… My experience in Afghanistan was made
great by the incredible team with whom I worked …‖
On the Charlie Rose Show Exum said, ―… I think it was a bit disheartening the way he [Gen.
McKernain] was dismissed (as big a fan I am of General McChrystal) ….‖ But, Josh Foust
observed, ―Back in May, when McChrystal‘s nomination was first announced and McKiernan
was summarily dismissed, Ex was singing a different tune … What changed, I wonder?‖
Jari (stupidest.wordpress.com) observed that ―… since returning from his latest civilian sojourn,
the normally witty and sarcastic Abu Muqawama has turned into a walking billboard for Gen.
McChrystal and his new command ... Phew, talk about a man crush.‖
On September 21, 2009, Gen. McChrystal‘s classified assessment of the Afghan war was
leaked to Bob Woodward at the Washington Post. Andrew Exum wrote that it was ―…
written with about a dozen talented and good-natured co-authors … I look forward to both
your judgment of our efforts and the effect it has on the policy debate in Washington and the
allied capitals.‖
The leak of McChrystal‘s secret assessment created friction between the military leadership and
the Obama administration which felt ―boxed in.‖ It appears someone in the military leaked the
assessment to put pressure on President Obama to OK the Afghan ―surge‖ of troops.
18
“BLAME TO SHARE ON A BOOK REVIEW”
On September 13, 2009, Andrew Exum‘s book review of ―Where Men Win Glory – The
Odyssey of Pat Tillman,‖ appeared in the Washington Post. Exum portrayed Krakauer as a
onspiracy theorist with a ―visceral hatred of the Bush administration‖ who lacked the experience
or knowledge to criticize the decisions of Army officers. He brushed aside the abundance of
damning evidence Krakauer presented about the Army's cover-up of Pat Tillman‘s friendly-fire
death. Instead of addressing the evidence, he excused the actions of his fellow Ranger officers as
―a series of blunders‖ (never even mentioning Gen. Stanley McChrystal despite his hands-on role
directing the cover-up).
Exum did mention he was a ―civilian advisor‖ in Afghanistan during 2009. However, Exum
failed to disclose to his readers he had been an advisor to Gen. McChrystal, mention his close
personal admiration for Gen. Chrystal, or mention his employer CNAS‘s close professional ties;
CEO Nate Fick said, ―[CNAS] meet[s] with General McChrystal … once a week to talk about
strategy there.‖
Andrew Exum‘s book review ―appears to be a calculated effort on Exum's part to undermine
Krakauer's credibility and undermine his valid criticisms of McChrystal [and the Ranger RGT
officers]. Exum wasn't merely "an unpaid adviser to McChrystal" -- Exum was one of
McChrystal's biggest cheerleaders.‖
...
“Soldiers are Either Victims … or War Criminals”
Instead of addressing Krakauer‘s evidence that pointed to a conspiracy by the Army to cover-up
the Pat Tillman fratricide (and McChrystal's central role in the cover-up), Andrew Exum asserted
that Krakauer, since he is not a combat veteran, cannot have the perspective to make any valid
commentary on the actions of men in combat and that ―in the eyes of Krakauer … soldiers are
either victims of circumstance or war criminals in waiting.‖:
―Krakauer does not appear to understand light infantry combat as well as he does
mountaineering … there is nothing in Krakauer's life or experience that inspires similar
confidence in his criticism of experienced combat officers ....‖
―Whenever one seeks to understand an epic failure of our nation's military, one must first
draw a line on a sheet of paper and write "conspiracy" at one end and "buffoonery" on the
other. Those who have spent time in the military and have seen it struggle not just with
19
war but with everyday barracks life tend to err on the side of incompetence, while those
who never have -- such as Krakauer -- tend to suspect conspiracy.‖
Apparently, Andrew Exum was unaware that Jon Krakauer spent seven months embedded in
Afghanistan in 2006 and 2007, ―I accompanied troops from the U.S. Army‘s Tenth Mountain
Division, Eighty-second Airborne Division, and Special Forces Operational Detachment – Alpha
773 … on numerous combat missions along the Pakistan border.‖ Perhaps Krakauer even spent
more time than Exum during his tours with the Tenth and his Ranger Battalion in 2002 and
2004? Surely Krakauer‘s experience would give him some standing?
Exum‘s bashing Krakauer for his lack of respect for the military is an absurd personal attack:
Krakauer donated proceeds from his book tour to veteran organizations and dedicated his book to
a soldier he spent time with in Afghanistan, SFC Jared Monti who died winning the Medal of
Honor.
“Gross Error of Judgement or a Conspiracy”
In his book review, Andrew Exum ignored the abundance of damning evidence Krakauer
presented in his book about the Army's cover-up of the Tillman fratricide. Instead, Exum tried to
portray Krakauer as a nut-job conspiracy theorist:
―By now, the story of Pat Tillman is widely known … and how the cause of his death --
friendly fire -- was kept from his family and the public for weeks in what, depending on
your point of view, was either a gross error of judgment or a conspiracy engineered by
the U.S. military and the Bush administration. … ―
However, the opening lines of Exum‘s book review actually provide eyewitness testimony to
support just such a ―conspiracy‖ theory! Exum began with his personal account of the night Pat
Tillman was killed:
―On April 22, 2004, I was standing in an operations center in Bagram, Afghanistan,
watching two firefights on the monitors and screens in front of me. A platoon of U.S.
Army Rangers and a special operations reconnaissance force were both under fire and in
possible need of assistance. As the leader of a 40-man quick-reaction force of Rangers, I
asked my squad leaders to gather our men while I awaited orders. My platoon was
dropped onto a 12,000-foot mountain at night to reinforce the small reconnaissance team
that had been battling men they believed to be al-Qaeda fighters, killing two combatants.
On the way south from Bagram, I listened on the radio to the U.S. casualty report from
the other firefight: One killed in action, two wounded. After a truly miserable night spent
20
at high altitude near the Pakistan border, I arrived back in Bagram to learn the name of
that Ranger killed in action: Spec. Patrick Daniel Tillman.‖
Andrew Exum had watched the video feed from a Predator drone of the Tillman firefight. Yet,
the Army denies the existence of the video that Exum saw with his own eyes. Krakauer wrote,
The forward observer assigned to Serial One, Specialist Donald Lee … heard an airplane
flying overhead … ―As I listened closer I knew it was a Predator drone‖ … Several other
Rangers also said they heard the drone. … headquarters later confirmed that a Predator
was overhead during the firefight, and a civilian contractor at Bagram said he
remembered seeing the Predator‘s video feed. During the numerous investigations that
would be undertaken over the next three years, the Army and the CIA nevertheless
asserted that no such video existed.‖
So … Andrew Exum must have been hallucinating when he says he was watching Predator
footage of the Tillman firefight, since the Army says no such video exists. I guess that footage
just happened to ―disappear,‖ just like all copies of the CPT Scott‘s first 15-6 report just
happened to vanish! It must have just been another one of the Army‘s ―blunders.‖
“Boots on the Ground By Dusk”
Andrew Exum ridiculed Krakauer‘s assertion that the order to get ―boots on the ground by dusk‖
was driven by ―Rumsfeld‘s insistence on strict timelines.‖
"Incredibly, [Krakauer] tries to claim that [the cascade of blunders that culminated in
Tillman's death] was driven not by poor and independent decision-making by field-grade
officers but rather by Donald Rumsfeld's insistence on strict timelines. '[The] sense of
urgency attached to the mission,' Krakauer writes, 'came from little more than a
bureaucratic fixation on meeting arbitrary deadlines so missions could be checked off a
list and tallied as 'accomplished.' Ranger units are not ordered to meet deadlines
arbitrarily. They meet deadlines because the missions they execute--like airfield seizures
or hostage rescues--are extraordinarily complex operations."
Contrary to Exum's assertion above, however, the mission on which Tillman was killed wasn't an
airfield seizure or a hostage rescue, and Exum's review conveniently omits most of what
Krakauer actually wrote in the passage excerpted above:
―After making his case that the mission could be accomplished just as effectively and just
as quickly without splitting the platoon, Uthlaut was baffled by headquarters‘ stubborn
21
insistence on dividing it. He [Lt Uthlaut] asked Dennis [EO Alpha CO], ―So the only
reason that you want me to split my platoon is to have boots on the ground in the sector
before dark?‖ ‗Yes‘, Dennis replied. …‖
"During an investigation of Tillman‘s death seven months later, Brigadier General Gary
Jones asked Alpha Company first sergeant Thomas Fuller, 'I mean, what necessitated in
this mission right here that they had to get down there so quickly?' ―I don‘t think there
was anything,‖ Fuller testified under oath. ―I think that a lot of times at higher
[headquarters] – maybe even, you know, higher than battalion [headquarters] – they may
make a timeline, and then we just feel like we have to stick to that timeline. There‘s no –
there‘s no ‗intel‘ driving it. There‘s no – you know, there‘s no events driving it. It‘s just
a timeline, and we fell like we have to stick with it; and that‘s what drives that kind of
stuff.‖
―In other words, the sense of urgency attached to the mission came from little more than
a bureaucratic fixation on meeting arbitrary deadlines so missions could be checked off a
list and tallied as 'accomplished.' This emphasis on quantification has always been a
hallmark of the military, but it was carried to new heights of fatuity during Donald
Rumsfeld‘s tenure at the Pentagon."
“I Am Hardly Objective Here”
Andrew Exum disclosed one of his conflicts of interest,that he had served as a Ranger officer
with the Ranger RGT officers criticized by Krakauer for their role in the cover-up:
―… As a former officer in the 75th Ranger Regiment -- an elite unit whose leadership
Krakauer skewers – …‘
And, as Andrew Exum wrote in his June 2, 2009 blog post, ―Confirm Him‖:
Rangers, at the time, so I am hardly objective here), …‖
Exactly! So why the hell is he writing a review of a book that criticizes his Ranger RGT, his
fellow Ranger officers and Gen. McChrystal?
―… there is plenty of documentary evidence suggesting that experienced military officers

did, in fact, make a series of blunders in the aftermath of Tillman's death. As a former
officer in the 75th Ranger Regiment -- an elite unit whose leadership Krakauer skewers –
22
I might be expected to rise to the defense of the officers who made the decision to initially
withhold the details of Tillman's death from his family and the public.‖
Yet, Exum brushed aside the abundance of damning evidence Krakauer of the Army's cover-up
of Pat Tillman‘s friendly-fire death. Instead of actually addressing the evidence, Exum defended
his fellow Ranger officers by excusing their actions to cover-up Tillman‘s friendly-fire death as
merely ―a series of blunders‖ and ―a series of disastrous and incomprehensibly stupid decisions‖.
“McChrystal Stands Out as … Probably the Least Culpable Guy”
Andrew Exum never even mentioned Gen. Stanley McChrystal in his book review, although
McChrystal had played a central role in the cover-up of Pat Tillman‘s friendly-fire death.
Prior to McChrystal‘s June 2nd 2009 Senate confirmation hearing, Exum wrote ―Confirm Him‖
voicing his support for McChrystal‘s confirmation and dismissing the Tillman family‘s ―personal
grief‖:
―…McChrystal was by all accounts not one of the officers in the chain of command who
made really egregious errors or misjudgments -- he even warned off his high command
from turning Ranger Tillman into some great hero before all the facts were in. …‖
―The bottom line is, nothing is ever going to heal the wounds inflicted on the Tillman
Family … And while I have nothing but respect for the Tillman Family…, their personal
grief should not be a veto on the nomination … These are serious questions and are more
important than either the death of Pat Tillman or the alleged abuse of detainees.‖
However, the evidence is overwhelming that McChrystal played a key role in the cover-up of
Tillman‘s fratricide. And it appears that McChrystal personally supervised the writing of the
false Silver Star citation and altered the witness statements that turned Tillman into a ―great
hero.‖
Note: for details on Gen. McChrystals role, see ―The [Untold] Tillman Story‖
23
“Blame to Spare on a Book Review”
On November 15th 2009, the Washington Post published a brief correction alluding to Exum‘s
conflict of interest with Gen. McChrystal. The Washington Post‘s Ombudsman Andrew
Alexander wrote in his column ―Blame to Spare on a Book Review‖ :
―Krakauer is angry. He told me that because Exum is ‗enthralled‘ with McChrystal, he

wrote a "willfully deceptive" review that protected him. … But Exum said his role with
McChrystal was so obvious that he assumed Post book editors were aware of it. … "It
was all over the news that I had been in Afghanistan" advising McChrystal, he said.
… I also think Exum deserves blame. The contract language is explicit. Despite media
coverage of his role in Afghanistan, the contract puts the onus on the reviewer to notify
The Post if there is an "appearance of a conflict of interest."
But, Exum had more than merely the ―appearance of a conflict of interest‖ when it comes to
General McChrystal. Exum failed to disclose his close personal and professional ties with Gen.
McChrystal.
Exum is a fellow at CNAS, the ―go to‖ Washington think-tank, which advocated for the Afghan
―surge‖. CNAS had close ties with both Gen. Petreaus and Gen. McChrystal; CEO Nate Fick
said in Nov. 2009, ―[CNAS] meet[s] with General McChrystal … once a week to talk about
strategy there.‖
As a ―civilian advisor‖ in June 2009, Exum worked closely with General McChrystal as a
member of his 60-day Afghan war assessment team. In a blog post, Exum wrote, ―[General
McChrystal])… put up with my smart-assery -- often in enclosed spaces -- for a whole month‘.‖
Andrew Exum is a self-professed ―fan‖ of McChrystal who has lavished praise on General
McChrystal, ―… you really need a silver bullet …You have one chance to get this right, and
you'd better get your A-team on the field." … ―I do know that Stan McChrystal is an automatic
starter in anyone's line-up‖ and has described McChrystal as "one of the finest men I have ever
known, and I hope I have sons who serve under men like him."
―Sfoda‖ wrote, ―Exum's failure to disclose that he is in thrall to General McChrystal is a very
serious breach of journalistic ethics, not so much because it may have hurt Krakauer's book sales,
but because it appears to be a calculated effort on Exum's part to undermine Krakauer's
credibility. Exum wasn't merely "an unpaid adviser to McChrystal"-- Exum was, and remains,
one of McChrystal's biggest cheerleaders.‖
24
"On Martial Virtue ... and Selling Jon Krakauer's

Crappy New Book"
On October 15, 2009 Jon Krakauer published "Gen. McChrystal's Credibility Problem"
describing Gen. McChrystal‘s hand-on role in supervising the cover-up of Pat Tillman‘s
friendly-fire death and the writing of a fraudulent Silver Star award:
―LTC Bailey said, ‗There was no doubt about it. It was a case where there were six or
seven Rangers that saw the vehicle shooting at them. [He called the Ranger RGT
commander COL Nixon] … Before the day was out, Nixon notified three of his
superiors, including McChrystal, that Tillman‘s death was a fratricide. … Army officers
embarked on an elaborate campaign to suppress the truth …McChrystal was put in
charge of writing and expediting the medal recommendation … McChrystal insisted …
although he closely supervised the drafting of these documents, he simply failed to notice
that all of them had been painstakingly written to omit any reference to friendly fire. …
two soldiers … later testified that both [their Silver Star witness] statements had been
fabricated, apparently by one or more members of the Silver Star recommendation team
[Nixon, Kauzlarich, and/or McChrystal].‖
...
On November 1st 2009, on Meet the Press, Jon Krakauer accused General McChrystal of lying
about his role in the Tillman cover-up:
GREGORY: Even those who were critical of him and the Army say they don't think he
willfully deceived anyone.
MR. KRAKAUER: That's correct. He, he just said now he didn't read this hugely
important document about the most famous soldier in the military. He didn't read it
carefully enough to notice that it talked about enemy fire instead of friendly fire? That's
preposterous. That, that's not believable.
GREGORY: All right, part of this debate. Thank you all very much.
...
The following day, in response to Krakauer‘s Meet the Press appearance, Andrew Exum posted
―On Martial Virtue … and Selling Jon Krakauer‘s Crappy New Book‖:
25
―A few months ago, I was asked to review Jon Krakauer's new book by the Washington
Post ... the book was awful. I mean, it was really bad. ... Krakauer wrote a crappy book,
and now he has to market it. And how is he doing that?‖
―By going after Stan McChrystal, who is probably the least culpable guy in Tillman's
chain of command ... There Krakauer was, on Meet the Press yesterday, going after
McChrystal, who he never interviewed for his book who sent a memorandum up through
the chain of command at the time of Tillman‟s death warning his commanders … Stan
McChrystal stands out as one of the guys who made mistakes but ultimately did the right
thing. ...‖
―But in the eyes of Krakauer and on the fringes of the American left, soldiers are either
victims of circumstance or war criminals in waiting. … Stan McChrystal is one of the
finest men I have ever known, and I hope I have sons who serve under men like him. Jon
Krakauer is going after him now because he has written a crappy book and now has to
sell it. ―
...
Aside: My comments on this post which I haven‘t addressed previously:
1.) “There Krakauer was, on Meet the Press yesterday, going after McChrystal, who he never
interviewed for his book…”
Krakauer never interviewed McChrystal because all of the Army officers involved have refused
interviews (with the exception of Gen. Kensinger). Even with the NYT journalists who wrote
hero-worshipping iconographies, McChrystal refused to talk with them about the Tillman case.
To my knowledge, McChrystal‘s only public (and disingenuous) comments were during his June
2, 2009 Senate confirmation hearing.
2.) “[McChrystal] who had sent a memorandum [P4] up through the chain of command at the
time of Tillman's death warning his commanders about the circumstances surrounding the
event.”
No, McChrystal sent the P4 memo a week after Tillman‘s death, even though the 15-6
investigating officer CPT Scott passed verbal confirmation of friendly-fire up the chain to
McChrystal the day after the death. Some timely ―warning‖!
26
3.) “I at least had no idea Tillman was killed by friendly fire. I would not learn that fact until I
had returned to the United States a week later”
So, let me get this right. Exum learned about Tillman‘s friendly-fire just a week after he
returned to the US. But, supposedly Tillman’s friendly-fire death was a ―closely held‖ secret by
the Ranger RGT Commanders. Yet, even Andrew Exum (a lowly LT across the ocean back in
the US) knew about it, but not Secretary Rumsfeld, Gen. Abizaid, or President Bush, etc? The
Tillman family wasn‘t told for five weeks, including Kevin Tillman who was a Ranger who had
returned home with his brother‘s body.
...
In response to Andrew Exum‘s ―On Martial Virtue…‖ blog post, I wrote a lengthy comment
―fisking‖* his whitewash of Gen. McChrystal (abridged version below):
Well, as one blogger wrote, ―Phew, talk about a man crush. … the normally witty and
sarcastic Abu Muqawama has turned into a walking billboard for Gen. McChrystal‖ …‖)
Andrew Exum is a self-professed ―fan‖ of McChrystal, who has lavished praise on
General McChrystal: ―… you really need a silver bullet …You have one chance to get
this right, and you'd better get your A-team on the field." … ―I do know that Stan
McChrystal is an automatic starter in anyone's line-up‖.
In his book review, Andrew Exum neglected to mention General McChrystal‘s central
role in the Tillman case or disclose his close personal and professional ties with him. This
past summer, Exum spent a month working closely with McChrystal in Afghanistan after
being asked by McChrystal to join his Afghan war assessment team: ‗This [Afghan War
Assessment] was written with about a dozen talented and good-natured co-authors (and
the world's most intense lead author [General McChrystal]) who put up with my smart-
assery -- often in enclosed spaces -- for a whole month‘.‖
Before reading this blog entry, I had assumed that Andrew Exum and CNAS were part of
the bi-partisan ―conspiracy‖ protecting General McChrystal, and that Exum had written
his book review to whitewash General McChrystal‘s central role in orchestrating the
cover-up of Pat Tillman‘s fratricide.
However, after reading this blog entry, I believe Andrew Exum is either awfully good at
feigning self-righteous outrage or he is woefully ignorant of the most basic facts of the
Tillman case. (And he thinks Krakauer‘s hard on McChrystal? He ought to read Mary
Tillman‘s book ―Boots on the Ground by Dusk‖ which eviscerated McChrystal!)
27
Unlike Exum, I know what I‘m talking about. I‘ve followed the Tillman case the past
four years and have closely examined the reports from the various Army, IG and
Congressional ―investigations.‖
Far from ―the least culpable guy‖ who ―ultimately did the right thing‖ McChrystal was
probably the most culpable guy in the Tillman case: McChrystal received confirmation
of Tillman‘s fratricide within two days, had the responsibility to tell the family, made the
decision not to tell the family about fratricide, and he supervised the writing of the
―misleading‖ Silver Star award, and then sent his ―timely‖ prevaricating P4 memo a week
after the 15-6 investigating officer passed verbal confirmation of friendly-fire up the
chain of command to McChrystal.
Here‘s my take from McChrystal‘s June 2, 2009 Senate confirmation hearing (excerpted
from my 200 page binder, ―Did They Teach You How to Lie Yet?‖ Senator James Webb,
General Stanley McChrystal and the Betrayal of Pat Tillman):
Note: In the original comment I placed here ―My Response to Gen. McChrystal‘s Testimony‖.
See ―Senate Armed Service‘s Committee‘s June 2nd Confirmation Hearing‖ in the post ―Did
They Teach You How to Lie Yet?‖]
You can find more at ―Senate Confirmation Hearing for Gen. McChrystal‘s Promotion (June
2009)‖ in ―The [Untold] Tillman Story‖.]
Andrew Exum criticized Krakauer‘s ―visceral hatred of the Bush administration‖ and for
his being ―eager to launch an inquisition into the crimes of the Bush Administration…‖
Here, I agree with Exum that Krakauer focused too much on the sins of the Bush
Adminstration.
Krakauer‘s story blaming Bush and the Army for the cover-up, with the Democratic
Congress as the champions in pursuit of the truth is too simple. In reality, the cover-up
has been a thoroughly bipartisan affair, with Congress and the Obama Presidency
continuing to protect General McChrystal from punishment. And the New York Time‘s
and their Pentagon Reporter Thom Shanker played a role as well.
Congressman Waxman‘s so-called investigation (like the IG report) was not an honest
attempt to get at the truth. I believe that sometime after the April 2007 hearing, Waxman
got the word the ―fix‖ was in, to lay off McChrystal. (Perhaps because of McChrystal‘s
important covert contribution to the ―surge‖ in Iraq?) Waxman dropped him from the list
of witnesses for the August 1, 2007 hearing and the testimony during that hearing was a
28
praise-fest for McChrystal. Despite the concerns raised by the Committee during the
April 2007 hearing about the falsified Silver Star, P4 document, etc. they never looked at
McChrystal, who was at the center of these actions.
Like Pat Tillman, Senator Webb‘s been a maverick and a fascinating character. I‘ve read
his novels for thirty years. His betrayal of the Tillman family cuts me the deepest. I‘ve
trusted his sense of honor for thirty years. If anyone in Congress should have cared, it
would have been him (For example, Webb, as a young Marine veteran spent 8 years to
clear the name of a dead Marine for his mother‘s sake!)
Yet, during the same time in April – May 2008, after he received my letter imploring him
to help Mary Tillman, he was conducting a secret ―review‖ of McChrystal‘s actions in
the Tillman cover-up. Shortly afterwards, while Mary Tillman was in DC on her book
tour, the Senate Armed Services Committee (headed by Levin and McCain) held their
secret ―executive session‖ to hear McChrystal testify. Shortly thereafter, the Senate
promoted him to Director of the Joint Staff.
I‘m hard on Webb not because I dislike the man, but that I‘m disappointed by him. As an
old man and politician, he‘s turned into exactly what he once reviled as a young soldier! I
find it tragic to see Webb compromising his sense of honor (perhaps even Pat Tillman
would have done so as well, if he had lived long enough?). I even believe Webb‘s doing
it with the best of intentions, that he believes McChrystal is indispensable to the Afghan
war. But I still don‘t forgive him for it. Or like it.
And I‘m certainly not casting all the blame for the sins of Congress onto Senator Webb.
Henry Waxman, Chairman Carl Levin, Senator McCain, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid
and others in Congress bear greater responsible than Webb. It just happens I know more
about Webb and his role and have had personal interactions with his office.
In my binder, ―Lies’s … Borne Out by Lies If Not the Truth,‖ I discuss The New York
Times role in whitewashing McChrystal‘s role in the cover-up of the Tillman fratricide. I
pretty much lay it all out in the binder, starting with an overview and going into more
detail. I didn‘t come away from my personal experience with Thom Shanker and ―The
Gray Lady‖ with any confidence in our ―watchdog‖ media. And I‘d like to point out that
Thom Shanker also participated in the Jessica Lynch story in 2003. I haven‘t dug into that
side of the story much, although I included an article in the binder by Gregg Mitchell
about it.
I believe that President Obama was certainly aware of General McChrystal‘s involvement
in the cover-up of Tillman‘s fratricide. I cannot imagine that his staff did not thoroughly
29
vet McChrystal before his nomination on May 12th. Yet Obama chose to give him a pass,
and promote him to the Army‘s highest rank and make him the new commander of the
Afghan War. It‘s ironic that the previous general was fired to make way for McChrystal.
However, it‘s even more ironic that the following day Obama gave a commencement
address at Arizona State University inside Sun Devil Stadium without once mentioning
Pat Tillman! I‘m sure that he didn‘t want to bring up Tillman‘s name to avoid anyone
pointing out the connection to McChrystal‘s nomination. …
It‘s not surprising that after the initial fratricide cover-up fell apart, that Army officers
and the Bush administration lied to protect their careers. Reprehensible, but
understandable. But the Democratic Congress, after they took control of both Houses in
2006, could have gone after those responsible. Or at least not promoted them! Their
hands are dirty as well with the betrayal of Pat Tillman.
Clearly, despite (or because of) Andrew Exum‘s background as an Army Ranger officer
in Afghanistan, he was a poor choice to review Jon Krakauer‘s book. He simply has too
many personal and professional conflicts of interest with General McChrystal. And,
Exum hasn‘t done his due diligence and done any significant research into the Tillman
case. Instead of unsupported opinion and bluster, he needs to look at the source
documents. He could begin by reading Mary Tillman‘s book, perhaps give her a phone
call, or I‘d be happy to school him by passing on the information in my binders.
P.S. Lest I be accused by Exum of being ―on the fringes of the American Left,‖ I am not
a Republican. Nor a Democrat. I‘m an independent, disgusted with the corruption of both
parties. Hell, I even voted for Nader in 2008! (maybe that does put me on the "fringes"?)
As far as my ―martial virtues‖ go, I‘ve spent the last eighteen years as a firefighter and
the eight years before that with an LRRP company from 1983 – 1991, as a SGT with Co.
―F‖ (Ranger), 425th Infantry
...
I‘ve never received any response from Andrew Exum addressing my criticism of his defense of
Gen. McChrystal and Exum‘s ―crappy‖ book review.
*Fisking From Wikipedia:
30
The term fisking is blogosphere slang describing a point-by-point refutation of a blog entry or
(especially) news story. A really stylish fisking is witty, logical, sarcastic and ruthlessly factual.
Fisking is different from flaming, with which it is sometimes confused. Fisking is not merely
verbal abuse, although it may contain a substantial amount of derision, scorn or even profanity.
The British newspaper The Observer defined fisking as "...the practice of savaging an argument
and scattering the tattered remnants to the four corners of the internet…‖
Origin: Named after Robert Fisk of the Independent, whose columns were "a frequent (and
deserving) early target of such treatment." ―Fisking" was coined by bloggers in December 2001,
following a three-paragraph response by Andrew Sullivan to an article Fisk wrote for The
Sunday Independent earlier that month.
...
I love this new verb! I just discovered it today (1-14-11). Ironically, Andrew Exum mentioned
―fisking‖ in a post just a month earlier, ―The Financial World Meets Robert Fisk (Oct. 8, 2009).
I think ―savaging an argument and scattering the tattered remnants to the four corners of the
internet…‖ is an accurate description of my rebuttal of Exum‘s book review and blog post.
At least a few other readers agreed with me: “Kaboom. Total slaughter. Well done, Guy
Montag‖ … “Great stuff Guy. I love you AM, but Guy just made your ass bleed‖ … “I agree
with Guy, one "crappy" book report.‖
31

**** Financial World fisk mention
Just a week after I ―fisked‖ Andrew Exum‘s blog post, ―On Martial Virtue …And Selling Jon
Krakauer‘s Crappy New Book‖, ** after total slaughter
his posting of ―He Who Shall Not Be Fact Checked‖ struck me as terribly pathetic. incredulous
Does Exum have no sense of irony or self awareness? :
**** hypocrisy unself-conscious lack of irony ironic self-awareness callow, lack of maturity.
―Are you the "He"? Isn't there a bit of projection going on here? Accusing others of
exactly what you do yourself? This past month alone, you‘ve written three posts accusing
others of poor journalism and fact checking …
I responded to your ―Martial Virtue‖ posting with a rather lengthy comment explaining
why I believed that you were either awfully good at feigning self-righteous outrage or
were woefully (and/or willfully) ignorant of the most basic facts of the Tillman case.
Despite your assertion that McChrystal was ―probably the least culpable guy in Tillman's
chain of command‖ the evidence is overwhelming that McChrystal played a key role in
the cover-up of Tillman‘s fratricide. You have the audacity to accuse others of poor fact
checking, yet you haven‘t done any significant research into the Tillman case. You need
more than unsupported opinion and bluster to support your claims …
Sometimes silence is the best compliment. …I‘d welcome your fact-checking prowess
aimed in my direction. But please, stop with the off-the-cuff ad hominum attacks on
others such as Robert Fisk, Sy Hersh, and Jon Krakauer. Take the timber out of your
own eye before casting stones at others.‖
Andrew Exum appears to be far too defensive about his intellectual and moral integrity (Me
thinks he doth protest too much). What appears to be psychological projection of his own faults
onto others appear in several his posts, especially in his 5-17-10 exchange with Carl Prine [a
former Marine and investigative reporter for the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review. In 2005 he re-
enlisted into a National Guard infantry unit and was sent to Iraq]; italics added:
―@Carl Prine: Ah, death, taxes, and Carl Prine's self-righteousness… in your criticisms
you most certainly come off as self-righteous and acidic. Bottom line: you're a jerk. If
you really wanted to criticize me in a constructive manner, you might think about
32
adopting a more humble voice that doesn't feel the need to question my integrity --
intellectual and moral -- at every step along the way and admits that just maybe Carl
Prine doesn't have it all figured out either. The tone … reinforces a suspicion that Carl
Prine is just as intellectually arrogant as he would accuse others of being. The whole "I
am criticizing you because I admire you but now I'm going to launch into an ad hominem
assault on your work and your motives" shtick has worn thin.‖
...
“Civil-Military Relations in the Obama Era” (May 17, 2010): “When you can demonstrate
how I have tempered or amended my views based on my employer or its donor base, Carl, call
me. You better have actual hard evidence before you start slinging accusations of intellectual
dishonesty.”
Really? Do you still stand by your Washington Post book review? Or your post ―On
Martial Virtue … and Selling Jon Krakauer‘s Crappy New Book‖? McChrystal was
hardly "the least culpable guy" in the Tillman case. It appears that you were either being
intellectually dishonest or willfully ignorant.
And, you seem to be a bit too defensive about your intellectual and moral "integrity." I
certainly don't believe you've exhibited either with your WAPO book review or your
exoneration of Gen. McChrystal and the Ranger RGT officers for their role in the
whitewash of Pat Tillman's friendly-fire death.
...
“Journalist FAIL” (June 15, 2010): "he [Risen] could use an extra dose of humility today. ...
Just read what a self-important jerk he sounds like when asked to defend his reporting ... What
phenomenal arrogance. What a jerk."
Are you talking about Risen or yourself? Your fundamental humility doesn't always shine
through in your blog posts which only displayed your ignorance of the matter and/or
complicity in covering for Gen. McChrystal and the Ranger RGT officers involved in the
Tillman case.
...
“On Bacevich, Part I” (Sept. 6, 2010): “Elsewhere, Bacevich makes assertions without
backing them up in facts. … This third fourth of the book was maddening to read because it
struck me as disingenuous.”
33
Exum has no facts to back up his assertions about the Tillman case. Hence, his silence.
How does the saying go, something like, ―Better to be silent and thought the fool, than to
open your mouth and remove all doubt?
...
“On Corruption (And Admitting When You're Wrong)” (Sept. 13, 2010: "I know think tank
researchers, like scholars in academia, are not supposed to admit when they have been wrong
about something. But as regular readers of this blog know, I am not above doing that from time
to time..."
I don't recall a mea culpa on your spirited defense of Gen. McChrystal's role in the cover-
up of Pat Tillman's friendly-fire death last year that concluded with "Stan McChrystal is
one of the finest men I have ever known, and I hope I have sons who serve under men
like him."
...
“From the Dept. of Intellectual Dishonesty” (Sept. 29, 2010): "But this is the kind of stuff that
gives think tank researchers a bad name. ... when an author is selectively sourcing his argument
and deliberately avoiding evidence or conclusions that might weaken his thesis. Again, this is
worse than disingenuous. This is dishonest."
AM is the "pot calling the kettle black". AM could be talking about himself. Last year he
did the same [as he accuses Abrams] with his dishonest review of Jon Krakauer's "Where
Men Win Glory" for the Washington Post and his indefensible defense of Gen.
McChrystal's central role in the Pat Tillman affair.
...
“Abu Muqawama Sells Out!” (Dec. 3, 2009): ―I think this is another case of "they disagree
with me on policy, therefore they must be intellectually dishonest". Or, hey, maybe we instead
have a different set of assumptions, educations and experiences which lead us toward different
conclusions. … ―
It would be nice if Mr. Exum would actually extend that courtesy to others. Before his
short "retirement" from blogging, he has been quick to hurl ad hominum attacks instead
of addressing the merits of arguments with which he disagrees. … Quite possibly, Mr.
Exum believes his own BS. As the saying goes, "It is difficult to get a man to understand
something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it."
...
34
“ajay”: ―… I think the point is not that CNAS, or you, … is being dishonest - just that
defense companies are going to prefer to support people and organizations which are
arguing (sincerely or otherwise) for an aggressive foreign policy. If CNAS started saying
"we should cut the Navy in half, turn the Army into an all-reserve force and scrap the
SSN fleet" I think it's safe to say that the funding from defense companies might well dry
up. So there's an institutional bias: people who sincerely believe in an aggressive policy
will get the money; people who don't won't.‖
35
PUBLIC SERVICE ANNOUNCEMENT

On November 23, 2009 Andew Exum announced that he had ―decided to stop daily blogging‖
writing, ―My friend and boss Nate Fick … accurately described me last week [Nov. 16?] as
being someone who enjoys taking a more deliberate approach and digging deep down into an
issue before offering comment. … since starting at CNAS and taking up a more public profile, I
have grown concerned over the reaction to my blogging and public commentary… I may have a
certain talent for writing clever 200-word blog posts and offering sound bites on television, but
… I would much rather do research … than be some public figure sprinting from television
interview to radio spot, twittering in the cab along the way.‖
Reading between the lines, I believe Exum‘s biased review of Jon Krakauer‘s book about Pat
Tillman and some of his off-the-cuff postings caused a bit of embarrassment for CNAS
That his boss and friend Nate Fick (―#42") decided that it was best that he lay low and reduce his
public profile for a while. Besides, for good or ill, he had already done his part to help set
McChrystal‘s Afghan ―surge‖ into motion.
A few months later, Exum appeared to refer back to the events of November 2009: ―In fact, on
multiple occasions over the past year, I have either offended someone or written something
outrageous on this blog, and John and Nate have had my back every time …‖ (AM 4-26-09).
Note: The Washington Post ombudsman‘s column which blamed Exum for his failure to
disclose his conflicts of interest with Gen. McChrystal was published on Nov. 15. It appears that
Fick talked with Exum shortly afterwards (―last week‖ about the 16th).
I liked ―b‖ s succinct response to AM‘s announcement:
―Shorter Exum: Look, I seem to have problems to stay on the officially demanded
message whenever I spontaneously blog about some current development or event. My
boss told me to either quit publishing my real off-message thoughts or to quit the job at
CNAS. Me and my family do prefer the money over publishing my spontaneous opinion.
Therefore I'll quit blogging.‖
...
Andrew Exum‘s ―Writing Hiatus‖ didn‘t last very long. As ―Vizzo‖ wrote, ―AM, I don't see the
difference … This is the third time you've said you were taking a blogging break in the last year
and it only lasted at tops a week and 1/2 to two weeks!‖. However, Exum‘s public and media
appearances did appear to quiet down for a couple of months.
36
"Dulce Et Decorum Est Pro Patria Et Religione Mori”
Heading into Memorial Day weekend of 2010, Andrew Exum wrote,
―we should give thanks not only for those who have fallen on the field of honor but for all the
simply amazing young men and women who continue to volunteer to serve in and officer our
armed forces. They continue to be the very best of us, and just as it was an honor to have
walked alongside them for a few years in an otherwise misspent youth ... Semper Fidelis …‖
...
*** “field of honor” “Where Men Win Glory” quote from inside
**** Caroline
*** add JK WSJ meant nothing
**** Richard he’s fucking dead (and add to end of summary after memorial plaque)
I responded to AM‘s post with,
―Amen. I'll host a Guinness to the memory of Pat Tillman, who displayed more integrity
with his life, than his entire chain-of-command (Democrats & Republicans) ever did with
the way they've treated him and his family by lying about his friendly-fire death. So
much for Army "values" and the Marine‘s Semper Fidelis!‖
Last year, I wasn't impressed with the whitewash of Gen. McChrystal‘s central role in the
Army‘s cover-up of Pat Tillman‘s friendly-fire death by President Obama, the
Democratic Senate (especially Senator James Webb, a highly decorated Vietnam Marine
officer), and those at CNAS who played a role (especially AM and the ―writer in
residence‖ NYT reporter Thom Shanker).
The Sundance documentary "The Tillman Story" is scheduled for release this August.
...
On November 11, 2010 Andrew Exum posted a series of war poems to commemorate Veteran’s
Day. He commented ―One could probably title this one ["A Mujahid's Wish From His Mother"]
"Dulce et decorum est pro patria et religione mori."
37
I responded by writing that ―I doubt that Pat Tillman would think that "Dulce et decorum est pro
patria et religione mori" applies to his death. At least not if he knew how his family has been
betrayed by his country's leadership. And, recalling his words to a fellow Ranger while watching
the fireworks in Iraq in 2003 were, ‗This war is so ----ing illegal!‘
To commemorate Pat Tillman‘s Birthday (November 6 just a few days Veteran‘s Day) I also
posted a William Butler Yeats poem, along with quotes from Senator James Webb:
PATRICK TILLMAN
November 6, 1976 – April 22, 2004
Pat lived in New Alamaden for most of his life. He came to love it for it‘s history and
community spirit. He roamed the hills with his brothers as a kid,
then hiked and trained in them as an athlete and soldier.
Pat was a loved son, brother, husband and faithful friend. He was a voracious reader, inquisitive
scholar, civic volunteer, aggressive athlete and a patriotic and selfless soldier.
New Alamaden and the nation lost Patrick Tillman in Afghanistan

on April 22, 2004 in service to his country.
...
What Was Lost
I sing what was lost and dread what was won,

I walk in a battle fought over again,
My king a lost king, and lost soldiers my men;
Feet to the Rising and Setting may run,
They always beat on the same small stone.
-- William Butler Yeats

...
.
―I found myself awash with a sense of injustice that I could not define. Or perhaps it was
merely that I was young. I had never seen with such clarity that … courage could destroy
one man while flight could make another man king. … I knew it was fruitless at this
point but still I felt a call for justice, an anger that life does not always reward the right
intentions, that the cycles of days and years and seasons lull us into thinking that in all
38
things there will be second chances, and even thirds, when in some things we have only
one. And sometimes we never know we had that single chance until it disappears.‖
―I was stronger then, but I am fiercer now. I was so certain of life, and of my place in it. I
was so sure of my love, and of my future. I now have none of those certainties, but at
least I can comprehend pain. I was so ready, so eager to fight and now I pay, richly pay,
for having fought. ... ―I guess that‘s what the world does to you. It makes you realize that
honor and loyalty are traps with no reward.‖
― … ―If nothing ever works out all the way, and if all things change, what‘s left? Your
family and your friends and your values, that‘s what‘s left. And your duty to them …
They‘re the only important things in life. … And that the rest of it might change a million
times, be called wrong or right or anything else, but you must never violate your loyalty
if you wished to survive the judgment of the ages.
-- Senator James Webb

...
**** Kevin words
39
“L’AFFAIR ROLLING STAN”
On May 17, 2009 Andrew Exum wrote ―… I'm encouraged the president apparently likes Stan
McChrystal …‖ But, just a month later, President Obama fired Gen. McChrystal.
Early on June 22, 2009 Micheal Hasting‘s Rolling Stone article, ―The Runaway General‖
appeared on the blogosphere. Andrew Exum‘s initial reaction was ―this is hardly MacArthur-
Truman territory, but POTUS has every right to be furious, and there are good arguments both
for and against the sack … I really admire Stan McChrystal, but he has put his superiors in an
incredibly difficult situation.‖
Early in the morning (9 am) Exum expressed his admiration for Gen. McChrystal and, ―weighing
the risks,‖ advocated for retaining him for the good of the Afghan War effort:
―I very much admire Stan McChrystal and have looked up to him since my time in the
Rangers when I fought in Afghanistan under his command. I know the man personally
and worked with him last summer … And so there may be a limit to how objective I can
really be, … I'm going to try and soberly analyze these risks without letting my
admiration for McChrystal get in the way.‖
―...you are risking mission failure by replacing the commander … You are in effect
arguing that healthy civilian-military relations are more important than winning in
Afghanistan. …. the president has every right to say that while Gen. McChrystal's
statements to Rolling Stone were shockingly inappropriate, there is a greater good here,
and that greater good is stabilizing Afghanistan. … My own prediction is that Gen.
McChrystal will be retained. …. I suspect the president will not replace the man he has
put in charge of executing that strategy with just 12 months to go before we begin a
withdrawal. …‖
However, Exum‘s opinion on ‖ l‘Affair Rolling Stan‖ appeared to shift during the course of the
day. By mid-afternoon (3 pm), as it became clear consensus had formed that McChrystal‘s firing
wouldn‘t be opposed by the Washington Defense establishment, Exum wrote:
―Something very, very positive happened today in Washington, DC. Senior Republican
legislators, to include Sen. John McCain … have made clear that the president is well
within his rights to fire Gen. McChrystal … Those who love our constitutional
democracy should exhale, because I for one was really afraid this was going to turn into a
40
partisan catfight … , with those on the Left screaming for the president to fire
McChrystal and those on the Right laying the blame at the feet of the president.‖
...
On June 23, 2009 Gen. McChrystal returned to Washington to meet with President Obama.
Shortly afterwards, President Obama announced that he had fired Gen. McChrystal and replaced
him with Gen. Petreaus (demoted from command of CENTCOM). The next day, Andrew Exum
praised the President‘s actions,
―I think the president acted very wisely today. I think he was well within his rights to fire
Gen. Stan McChrystal, a friend and a man for whom I have great admiration, and that it
was correct for healthy civil-military relations that he did so. … The president acted with
confidence and wisdom. And we have a very good general en route to Kabul. All that is
left, then, is to thank Gen. Stan McChrystal for his service. It is a pity that a man who has
given so much to his nation ends his career in such ignominious fashion.‖
...
―Abu Sharmouta‖ wrote, ―Exum slowly began to throw McChrystal under the bus over the past
few days. Might as well stick with the winning horse.‖ And ―IRR‖ chimed in,
―That's It? That's all you have to say about the forced retirement of a remarkable officer?
Your mentor? … I'm really disappointed to see how quickly you can just "turn the page"
on someone …This is all the reflection you have on this? Seriously. Hell, I've never even
met the man, but I can pen a send off post with more emotion and feeling. . A few
boilerplate lines thanking him for his service. Big. F--king. Deal.‖
Maria-Centric wrote:
―Wow, that's a low blow. Et tu, Exum? … So that you can cover your own ass with the
Obama administration? I am really taken back by your lack of courage and gratitude. …
It is one thing to be wrong in analysis. It is quite another to lack character. … And
mocking a man while he is down, well, that's just being a jerk on top of everything else.‖
Guy Montag’s Response to “L’Affair Rolling Stan”:
It's rather ironic to see all this talk about firing McChrystal again (remember last September?)
41
Especially when just last year, President Obama fired Gen. McKiernan for no reason other than
Petreaus, Mullen, etc. wanted McChrystal to be the savior of the Afghan war. In doing so,
President Obama overlooked McChrystal's involvement in torture at Camp Nama and
McChrystal's central role in the cover-up of Tillman's death and the fabrication of his Silver Star.
I've literally just posted [6-23-10] "The Emperor's General" -- President Barack Obama and the
Whitewash of General Stanley McChrystal‘s Role in the Cover-Up of Pat Tillman‘s Friendly-
Fire Death. …
Obviously, I'm not a big fan of McChrystal. But, by all accounts he's been an excellent SF
soldier. Maybe he's the best hope for Afghanistan. I don't know enough to comment on whether
the Pretreaus and CNAS‘s COIN strategy makes sense. But, McChrystal pissed me off with his
treatment of the Tillman family. I don't really care about retaining McChrystal for the "greater
interest of the war effort". But instead of seeing McChrystal fired over insubordination, I'd
rather see those involved in the Tillman cover-up to suffer some consequences. At least public
embarrassment …
...
Finally got a chance to finish reading the Rolling Stone article (too many BS calls at the fire
station tonight). Why all the uproar over the "Rolling Stone" article? McChrystal's men were
just trash-talking a bit (admittedly not the smartest thing to do on the record). In particular, the
Biden remark was totally taken out of context; it was a friggin joke!
If McChrystal is to be fired, it should have been over his central role in the Army's cover-up of
Tillman's friendly-fire death. Hastings quoted Mary Tillman, "… ‗The false narrative, which
McChrystal clearly helped construct, diminished Pat's true actions,‘ wrote Tillman's mother,
Mary, in her book Boots on the Ground by Dusk. McChrystal got away with it, she added,
because he was ―the ‗golden boy‘ of Rumsfeld and Bush, who loved his willingness to get things
done …‖
Hastings wrote, ―In May 2009, as McChrystal prepared for his confirmation hearings, his staff
prepared him for hard questions about Camp Nama and the Tillman cover-up. But the scandals
barely made a ripple in Congress, and McChrystal was soon on his way back to Kabul to run the
war in Afghanistan.‖
...
I agree with the ―Visitor‖ who wrote, “My gut feeling tells me, there was something deeper
going on ... The RS article being the fulcrum. In the end, I'm sure there will be some cable traffic
or e-mails that will probably show (in 20 years) what was really going on‖ (see ―Throwing My
Shoe at Bob Woodward … Not‖ for that discussion).
42
“I REFUSE TO WATCH IT”
On September 19, 2009 Roy Exum (retired sportswriter, columnist for chatthanoogan.com, and
father of Andrew) wrote, ―When I heard a new book [Where Men Win Glory] would be released
this week, I preordered a couple of copies … It turns out that Andrew had already read the book.
As a matter of fact, his review of it appeared in last Sunday's editions [9-13-09] of the
Washington Post …‖
Responding to Roy‘s column, I wrote: ―Andrew Exum dismissed Krakauer‘s assertion that
there was a ―conspiracy‖ by the Army to cover-up Tillman‘s fratricide … however, the very first
sentence of Exum‘s review actually provided evidence of just such a ‗conspiracy‘ … Why is
Andrew Exum so dismissive of any ―conspiracy‖? I would argue that he is protecting General
McChrystal … Clearly, despite Exum‘s background as an Army Ranger officer in Afghanistan,
he was a poor choice of reviewer since he has a ‗dog in the fight.‘‖
...
On July 13, 2010 Roy Exum wrote, ―Next month there will debut a film entitled The Tillman
Story. It will depict the life and death of the greatest hero I have known in my time … yet I will
refuse to watch it. ... Do not go watch The Tillman Story. I will never watch it but, for the life of
me, I can tell you it is false … I believe The Tillman Story is not about the real truth.‖
I sent Roy Exum an email lambasting him, ―Really? You haven‘t watched it, but ‗for the life of
me‘ you can tell me it is false?‘:
―… the Tillman family is very happy with the film by the way. In fact, the movie is just
as much about the Tillman family and their battle for the truth as about Pat Tillman.
Which side are you on? With the Tillman family of ―the greatest hero I have ever
known‖ or those who have dishonored his legacy with lies?‖
―It‘s rather ironic your son spoke of watching Predator footage that night of Tillman‘s
firefight when he was on the Ranger QRF at Bagram. … that footage disappeared, the
Army just can‘t find it. Or find the original 15-6 investigation report. Or figure out who
altered the Silver Star witness statements to remove all mention of friendly-fire … Your
son Andrew is either an ignorant fool on this subject, or a willing propaganda tool.‖
Perhaps Andrew Exum‘s approach to ―the epistemological questions I'm always asking myself --
"How do I know what I 'know'?" was inherited from his father? (e.g. ―… I will never watch it,
but, for the life of me, I can tell you it is false. … I believe The Tillman Story is not about the real
truth‖).
43
“THROWING MY SHOE AT BOB WOODWARD”
Finish details in talk of nation, exum rude, 1500 people
************************************
Civil-Military Relations in the Obama Era

May 17, 2010 | Posted by Abu Muqawama - 11:50am | 46 Comments
This article by Jonathan Alter in Newsweek on how Obama tamed his generals is great and worth
reading -- although not necessarily for the reasons the author intended. I'm going to offer up my
bottom line conclusion up front and then use the article as a starting point to consider some other
issues.
… As veteran media critics have noted, a growing number of "journalists" have exchanged
ridiculously uncritical coverage of this administration for the kind of high-level access necessary
to write "insider" books on the administration. This article is -- surprise! -- an excerpt from one
of those insider accounts. Nothing in this article seriously challenges the administration's
version of events, … but Alter's "journalism" more closely resembles court stenography than a
public service.
Note: ―…‘journalism‘ that more closely resembles court stenography than a public service.‖ …
sounds like a Bob Woodward book.
...
On Woodward's Book: A (Very Minor) Clarification

September 27, 2010 | Posted by Abu Muqawama - 11:35am | 74 Comments
I arrived back in the office this morning to discover a copy of Bob Woodward's new book on
my desk with the rest of the mail … That having been said, and since Marc Ambinder is
already giving me credit for having convinced Stan McChrystal to institute strict new traffic
guidelines for ISAF vehicles*, I need to make one minor correction -- a clarification, really --
to the section of the book in which I appear:
44
―The Toyotas raced around Kabul. The drivers honked their horns rather than step on
the brakes, madly changing lanes, swerving through traffic and accelerating at every
opportunity. The theory was that erratic driving reduced the chances of a roadside
attack. Afghans who didn't jump out of the way could be plowed down. After one of
the SUVs ran a bicyclist off the road, Andrew Exum, a fellow at the Center for a New
American Security and a former U.S. Army Ranger, asked the driver, ‗What are you
doing, man?‘
"You can't be too careful. Could've been a bomb, sir," was the response. But this kind
of commute left Afghans on the street visibly angry. The team could see how an
emphasis on force protection was causing the coalition to lose the Afghan people.
Exum wrote a one-pager for McChrystal about aggressive driving and armored
vehicles entitled "Touring Afghanistan by Submarine."
… It was, as Woodward writes, as if I was seeing Afghanistan through a periscope. … I spent

much of my time on Gen. McChrystal's review team examining our culture -- and how an
operational culture defined by "force protection über alles" hinders our ability to learn about
and understand the local dynamics of the conflict. That, in addition to running people of their
own roads, was what led to that paper.
On another note, readers of this blog will either be pleased or dismayed to discover that the
same black humor and blunt informality you see on this blog are also characteristics of my
interactions with four-star generals. For better or for worse, I suppose.
*********** check comments section for BW book mention?

...
On Woodward's Book: Heroes and Villains?

October 2, 2010 | Posted by Abu Muqawama - 11:29am | 40 Comments
I had a really busy week at work and was only able to finish Bob Woodward's new book this
morning. I must say, I really enjoyed it. It is almost impossible to dispassionately judge the
winners and losers of the book, in large part because your view on who is a hero and who is a
villain will be informed by your opinion regarding the outcome of the policy debate in the
fall of 2009. … For my part, I can see why the White House was not too concerned about this
book. I think the president comes out of it looking really good. …
If I had to fault anyone in the narrative it would be the uniformed military in Washington,
DC. I don't think the uniformed military conspired to box in the president, but I do think
they failed to provide credible alternate strategies until too late in the process. (The only
credible alternative was provided by McChrystal, late in the game, after he was asked what
he would do if he did not get the additional 30,000 troops.) …
45
Speaking of Stan McChrystal, is he a surprise winner in all of this? Doug Lute is quoted as
believing that McChrystal did not have a conspiratorial bone in his body (I agree) despite
plenty of nonsense from the Left to that effect, and after a U.S. Army inquiry cleared him of
any wrong-doing.
In the L'Affair Rolling Stan, Eliot Cohen asked the following:"I don't get it. The president
fired one of our truly great commanders not for things that he said but for tolerating
indiscretion, disloyalty and disrespect among his subordinates -- but do these people apply
anything remotely like that standard to themselves?" …
...
Comment by Guy Montag on October 3, 2010 - 5:21pm [late post since first blocked]
“… McChrystal did not have a conspiratorial bone in his body (I agree) … and after a U.S.
Army inquiry cleared him of any wrong-doing [in the Army‟s handling of the Tillman case]”
McChrystal was hardly cleared of "any wrong-doing" for his role in the Tillman story. The DoD
IG investigation, headed by IG Thomas Gimble, said McChrystal was "accountable" for
"inaccurate award information" (translation: fraudulent Silver Star recommendation & altered
witness statements). However, Gimble left the decision to discipline (or not) up to Secretary of
the Army Pete Geren. Geren appointed Gen. Wallace to "review" the Tillman case and
recommend discipline. Wallace ignored the IG's findings and recommended no discipline for
McChrystal. Instead, Gen. Kensinger became the designated scapegoat for the sins of
McChrystal (among others) for the Army's cover-up of Tillman's friendly-fire death.
...
“Doug Lute is quoted as believing that McChrystal did not have a conspiratorial bone in his
body (I agree) plenty of nonsense from the left to that effect":
I've documented McChrystal's complicity in the bipartisan whitewash (as well as those in
Congress such as Henry Waxman, John McCain, Carl Levin, Jim Webb & President Obama) in
my "The [Untold] Tillman Story" at http://www.feralfirefighter.blogspot.com
...
body (I agree) despite plenty of nonsense from the Left to that effect…”
Instead of ad hominum attacks, perhaps AM could actually explain the "nonsense' in my material
or that of Mary Tillman ("Boots on the Ground by Dusk" at blurb.com) or Jon Krakauer's
"Where Men Win Glory" (paperback edition with more detail on McChrystal's role) or try John
T. Reed's "military articles" at johntreed.com. And for those in major metro areas, the Sundance
documentary "The Tillman Story" is now showing (two theatres in DC).
46
And, I wouldn't call myself "Left". I would identify more with the agrarianism of Wendell Berry
or the principled conservatives/libertarians like Bill Kauffman, Andrew Bacevich or some of the
voices at the "American Conservative" magazine. Maybe I'm so far to the "Left" that I'm
"Right"?
Concerning the Tillman story, AM is either willfully ignorant or disingenuous, at best. Last year,
it certainly appeared that he was whitewashing McChrystal with his critical review of Krakauer's
book last year for the WP and his spirited defense of McChrystal in his 11-02-09 AM post.
...
Comment by Pave Low John on October 3, 2010 - 5:00pm
"Jay-zus, Exum, get off your knees, you're embarrassing the CINC" - possible quote from
anyone in 10th Mountain or the 75th RR who remembers Andrew E. when he had a commission
and some self-respect.
Believe it or not, I actually read 'This Man's Army'. Read Fick's book too. What it is about these
prep-school/Ivy League guys doing a hitch or two in the combat arms, then punching out to work
for some lefty think-tank? Afraid you'll miss the GS-15 gravy-train? But don't worry, Exum, I'm
sure the SECDEF or Michele or some other DoD wonk reads this blog and is very happy with
your analysis. I'm positive they'll make you a minor assistant undersecretary for something-or-
other in the Five-Sided Squirrel Cage one day. …
Even McChrystal, god help us, pussed out in the end. Does anyone here REALLY think a crafty
old operator like Stan the Man had no idea how stupid it was to let a Rolling Stone reporter
watch his staff get hammered in Paris? He wanted out of the hot seat, plain and simple, and he
used that douchebag reporter to do it. Now he can shrug and claim he's not a 'quitter' if the whole
thing falls apart in the next couple of years.
God, I can't wait to retire. Just one more year of this...
******
Insert edited NPR interview after finish it up 12-13-11
******
47
“SEMPER FIDELIS!”
*** Incomplete, not even draft 4-13-11 **8
“Where Men Win Glory”

Guy Montag 2:42 AM ET December 18, 2010
The title of Jon Krakauer's book, "Where Men Win Glory," was taken from a line from "The
Illiad". In his book, Krakauer portrayed Pat Tillman as an Achilles figure (with a bit of
Odysseus thrown in as well). From the tone of your comment, I believe you might be interested
in reading "The War That Killed Achilles: The True Story of Homer's Iliad and the Trojan War"
by Caroline Alexander (I read that book and The Illiad just a few months ago).
You mentioned "everyone else below the rank of E-9 get roasted as fast as we can get them to a
court martial. But the officers who fudged the Pat Tillman investigation ... What happens to
them? Somehow, the military finds an explanation for their actions."
LT Uthlaut (First Captain, top of his West Point Class) was ordered to split his platoon, over his
protests. He was shot in the face by the same friendly fire that killed Pat Tillman. Yet, he was
offered up as a low-ranking scapegoat and kicked out of the Ranger Battalion for his ―failure‖ to
control his platoon during the Pat Tillman's ―friendly fire‖ incident.
What happened to the officers who had their "hands-on" the ensuing cover-up? Gen. McChrystal
was promoted three times ending up as a four-star. The Ranger RGT commanders have all been
promoted: COL Nixon got his star. LTC Bailey got full-bird (recently got his star). LTC
Kauzlarich got full-bird.
And it's not just "the military [that] finds an explanation for their actions." The entire
Washington Establishment (per Andrew Bachevich's "Washington Rules") including both the
Bush & Obama administrations, Congress, and the Press (including the New York Times) have
whitewashed those involved in the Tillman cover-up.
I share the enlisted grunt's perspective. I was an Airborne Ranger LRRP for eight years and have
been a firefighter the past 20 years. Ironically, I was watching the HBO series "Generation Kill"
today at the fire station. "Back in the day" Nathaniel Fick was the LT of the Marine Recon
platoon featured in the series (and book of the same name). Now, he's the boss man at CNAS
whose Andrew Exum (former Ranger officer) has played a role in the whitewash of Gen.
McChrystal.
48
Comment by GuyMontag425 on April 26, 2010 - 1:07pm
―In fact, on multiple occasions over the past year, I have either offended someone or written
something outrageous on this blog, and John and Nate have had my back every time, earning my
loyalty in the process. Where did they learn to protect their subordinates? The U.S. Army and
U.S. Marine Corps, of course. It's true that we have all seen field grade officers allow a junior
officer to take the fall for something …‖
...
@AM:
Your Ranger RGT commanders offered up Lt. Uthlaut as the scapegoat for Pat Tillman‘s
friendly-fire death and kicked him out of the RGT (by the way, Uthlaut was hit in the face by
shrapnel during the incident and medivaced). Uthlaut was no slouch, he was the First Captain of
his West Point class, and had vehemently protested the stupid orders from the TOC to split his
platoon.
His superiors? All promoted. The RGT commander, Col. Nixon got his star. The XO LTC
Kauzlarich (―The Lost Kauz‖ in ―The Good Soldiers‖ book about the Surge) who led the 15-6
―investigation‖ was promoted to Full Bird. And General McChrystal? (who was in charge of
fabricating Tillman‘s Silver Star and personally led the cover-up on the ground in Afghanistan)
Of course, he got his fourth star.
What about your Ranger values ―to never fail a comrade‖ and Nate‘s ―sember fi‖? Just more
hypocritical BS! At least when it comes to having the back of your fellow Ranger Pat Tillman
and his mother Mary Tillman (―From the time I was very little, I was aware of my father‘s pride
in being a Marine. When I was three years old … I would stand between my parents, feet digging
into the soft leather of the big front seat, and sing the entire Marine Corps Hymn at the top of my
lungs‖ from her ―Boots on the Ground by Dusk‖).
Last year (―Confirm Him‖ 6-02-09) you wrote in your blog, ―The bottom line is, nothing is ever
going to heal the wounds inflicted on the Tillman Family … And while I have nothing but
respect for the Tillman Family…, their personal grief should not be a veto on the nomination of
the man [General McChrystal] … These are serious questions and are more important than either
the death of Pat Tillman or the alleged abuse of detainees.‖
I liked both you and Nate better when you were LTs. Now, you‘re both just a pair of Beltway
―suits.‖
49
Here's one more quote from another Ranger to throw out into the blogosphere. Speaks for itself.
From "Where Men Win Glory, Jon Krakuer (p. 328):
―From the moment you first join the Ranger Battalion, it‘s ingrained in you that you will
always do the right thing. … Then you see something like what they‘re doing to Pat –
what officers in the Ranger Regiment are doing – and you stop being so naïve.
The only two times where I personally was in a position to see where the Army had the
choice to do the right thing or the wrong thing, both times they chose to do the wrong
thing. One of those times was what they did to Pat. It made me realize that the Army does
what suits the Army. That‘s why I won‘t put that uniform back on. I‘m done.‖
-- SGT Mel Ward
...
"As we head into Memorial Day weekend, we should give thanks not only for those who have
fallen on the field of honor but for all the simply amazing young men and women who continue
to volunteer to serve in and officer our armed forces."
Amen. I'll host a Guinness to the memory of Pat Tillman, who displayed more integrity with his
life, than his entire chain-of-command (Democrats & Republicans) ever did with the way they've
treated him and his family by lying about his friendly-fire death. So much for Army "values"
and Semper Fidelis. Last year, I wasn't impressed with the whitewash of Gen. McChrystal by
President Obama and the Democratic Senate (and those at CNAS). McChrystal fabricated
Tillman's Silver Star and led the Army's cover-up.
...
"SEMPER FIDELIS!" ... Not always, not even from our best
Here's a excerpt (full text at http://www.feralfirefighter.blogspot.com) from my May 2009 letter

to Senator James Webb (highly decorated Vietnam Marine) asking him to place a hold on Gen.
Stanley McChrystal's Senate confirmation:
―For thirty years your books have dealt with themes of honor, integrity, loyalty, and
betrayal. Re-reading your books, I noticed many parallels between your books and the
story of Pat Tillman‘s death. On April 3rd 2008, I sent your office a letter asking you to
50
become an advocate in the Senate for Mary Tillman‘s struggle for the truth about her
son‘s death.‖
I believed you would feel a sense of kinship with Pat Tillman and his family: The Tillman‘s are
of Scots-Irish descent. Military service was prevalent and respected in the Tillman family. Mary
Tillman‘s uncles were at Pearl Harbor, her brother was a Marine, and her father was a Marine
during the Korean War. Mary wrote,
―From the time I was very little, I was aware of my father‘s pride in being a Marine.
When I was three years old … I would stand between my parents, feet
digging into the soft leather of the big front seat, and sing the entire Marine Corps Hymn
at the top of my lungs.‖
Pat Tillman was driven by a core of honesty, integrity, and loyalty. His mother wrote,
―Pat was honest and incorruptible; he would be offended and outraged about the actions
taken in the aftermath of his death. … He was such a loyal person. He always wanted to
do right by the people who mattered to him.‖ Coach Dave McGinnis said at his memorial
service, ―Honor, integrity, dignity; those weren‘t just adjectives in Pat Tillman‘s life; they
were his life. Pat Tillman was the embodiment of loyalty and commitment.‖
Similarly, in [James Webb's 1981 novel] "A Country Such As This", Senator Judd Smith said,
―If nothing ever works out all the way, and if all things change, what‘s left? Your family
and your friends and your values, that‘s what‘s left. And your duty to them. … They‘re
the only important things in life. … And that the rest of it might change a million times,
be called wrong or right or anything else, but you must never violate your loyalty if you
wished to survive the judgment of the ages.‖
Five years ago, Pat Tillman‘s family were handed a tarnished Silver Star. It will be a travesty of
justice if McChrystal is confirmed by the Senate Armed Services Committee, promoted to the
Army‘s highest rank, and handed his fourth star. But, perhaps you were right years ago in your
[1981] novel, ―A Sense of Honor,‖ when CPT Lenahan said, ―I guess that‘s what the world does
to you. It makes you realize that honor and loyalty are traps with no reward.‖
I feel you owe a duty to Pat Tillman and his family. A duty to place a ―hold‖ on General
McChrystal‘s nomination and stop his confirmation on June 2nd. Yeah, that could be a lost
cause. You‘d piss off a lot of people. But, at least you would give Mary Tillman the small solace
of knowing there is one man of integrity in the Senate willing to stand as her advocate. Someone
51
willing to ―be a lonely champion of lost causes…‖ Perhaps you need to take a long look at the
picture staring at you from your office wall? [Grandfather Hodges "who himself lost everything
because of the causes he championed."].
You‘ve been a hero to me for three decades, since I was a teenager, through my years as an
Airborne Ranger LRRP, to the present day as a firefighter. I haven‘t always agreed with your
positions on the Vietnam War, etc. But I‘ve never before doubted your integrity. I‘ve always
trusted your sense of honor. I‘d like to think that, after three years in Congress, you are still able
to answer ―No‖ to the question your great-Aunt Lena asked of you in 1975; ―So you‘ve been to
law school. Did they teach you how to lie yet?‖
...
But, instead of helping the Tillman family, Senator Webb whitewashed Gen. McChrystal and
continued the Army and Bush administration cover-up of Tilllman's friendly-fire death. So much
for the Senator's sense of honor and "semper fi"!
...
52
“GENERATION KILL”
In the Bush years, AEI wielded significant influence and helped develop major initiatives on national
security, including the surge in Iraq. In the era of Obama, however, the Center for a New American
Security (CNAS) may emerge as Washington's go-to think tank on military affairs.
CNAS has elicited some criticism for its heavy emphasis on counterinsurgency doctrine, but its growing
clout is undeniable. Then presidential candidate Hillary Clinton was the keynote speaker at CNAS‘s
inception last year. Founded in 2007, CNAS has already filled key posts in the new administration. The
organization has the benefit of senior brass who are attached to its efforts. The organization is backed by
a mix of military, private and corporate donors.
In June 2009, during their annual conference expected to attract about 1500 guests, CNAS presented its
report,"Triage: The Next Twelve Months in Afghanistan and Pakistan," written by Andrew Exum,
Nathaniel Fick, Ahmed Humayun and Kilcullen. The keynote speaker was none other than General
David Petraeus, CENTCOM commander.
...
At age 32, Nathaniel Fick is the CEO of CNAS. He served in Baghdad as a Marine captain — and wrote
a New York Times best-selling book, One Bullet Away, about the experience (HBO‘s miniseries
Generation Kill is also based on his platoon). Fick spoke at the 2008 Democratic National Convention.
He‘s on GQ‘s list [#42] of the 50 Most Powerful People in D.C.
...
In March 2009, Andrew Exum joined CNAS as a Fellow who focuses on the Middle East region,
irregular warfare and Afghanistan. CNAS President John Nagl said, "Andrew Exum is one of the world's
brightest thinkers and practitioners on irregular warfare...‖ His blog, Abu Muqawama, is considered a
―must-visit daily‖ blog in defense policy circles. It receives over 6,000 visitors a day from across the
world and has been cited frequently.
Exum served on active duty in the U.S. Army from 2000 until 2004. He led a platoon of the 10th
Mountain infantry in Afghanistan in 2002 (recounted in his 2004 book, This Man's Army: A Soldier's
Story from the Frontlines of the War on Terror) and a platoon of Army Rangers in Iraq and Afghanistan
in 2003 and 2004, respectively.
Exum served as an advisor on the CENTCOM assessment team and as a ―civilian advisor‖ on Gen.
McChrystal‘s Afghan assessment team in June 2009. He has published opinion pieces in the New York
Times, the Washington Post and has made numerous media appearances.
53
The 'It' Think Tank

Carlos Lozada, The Washington Post -- June 7, 2009
… In the Bush years, AEI wielded significant influence and helped develop major initiatives on national
security, including the surge in Iraq. In the era of Obama, however, the Center for a New American
Security may emerge as Washington's go-to think tank on military affairs.
CNAS has elicited some criticism for its heavy emphasis on counterinsurgency doctrine, but its growing
clout is undeniable. When the center officially releases "Triage" in a conference on Thursday, the keynote
speaker will be none other than Petraeus himself, who as head of Central Command, wields unique power
over U.S. actions in the Af-Pak theater.
Founded in 2007, CNAS has already filled key posts in the new administration …. Now CNAS has
completed a 31-page report ["Triage: The Next Twelve Months in Afghanistan and Pakistan," written by
Andrew Exum, Nathaniel Fick, Ahmed Humayun and Kilcullen] …
CNAS Annual Conference: Live Feed

June 10, 2009 | Posted by Abu Muqawama - 11:59pm
Abu Muqawama will be offline all tomorrow as we take part in the annual CNAS conference, kicked off
by General David Petraeus and expected to attract a ridiculous 1500 guests. … Nate Fick and I take the
stage with our paper on Afghanistan and Pakistan around 1100.
...
A Warrior and a Wonk

Erica Lovley, Politico – October 20, 2009
He‘s on GQ‘s list of the 50 Most Powerful People in D.C. He served in Baghdad as a Marine captain —
and wrote a New York Times best-selling book about the experience. David Simon, co-creator of HBO‘s
―The Wire,‖ produced a miniseries [Generation Kill] based on his platoon. So just who is Nate Fick?
At age 32, he‘s the CEO of Center for a New American Security, the fledgling defense think tank that‘s
staking ground on counterinsurgency … Fick spoke at the 2008 Democratic National Convention and
served on Obama‘s transition team for the Department of Veterans Affairs. …
Then presidential candidate Hillary Clinton was the keynote speaker at CNAS‘s inception last year.…
[he] recently hired Sen. John McCain‘s foreign policy adviser, Richard Fontaine… the organization has
the benefit of senior brass who are attached to its efforts. CNAS‘s president is retired Army Lt. Col. John
Nagl, a counterinsurgency expert who specialized in advising Iraqi and Afghan forces. Gen. David
Petraeus, head of the U.S. Central Command, was the keynote speaker for CNAS‘s summer conference
on Afghanistan and Pakistan. The organization is backed by a mix of government, private and corporate
donors, including defense contractor Honeywell, The Boeing Co. and four branches of the military.
54
#42!
October 13, 2009 | Posted by Abu Muqawama - 2:30pm
When I heard that my erstwhile drinking buddy and fulltime boss, Nate Fick, had been named one of
GQ's 50 most powerful people in Washington, I responded with the understated and sophisticated wit
this readership has come to expect from me. Which is to say that I crudely photo-shopped Nate's face onto
an old GQ cover that originally had a bikini'd Rachel Bilson on it and put it up in the CNAS kitchen. And
in the copy room. And in Nate's office. And on the door to his office. And emailed it to his in-laws.
...
Abu Muqawama Founder and Irregular Warfare Expert Andrew Exum Joins CNAS as a Fellow
CNAS Press Release -- March 16, 2009
The Center for a New American Security (CNAS) is pleased to announce that Abu Muqawama founder
and irregular warfare expert Andrew Exum has joined CNAS as a Fellow. At CNAS Exum will focus on
the Middle East region, irregular warfare and Afghanistan among other issues. CNAS President John
Nagl says, "Andrew Exum is one of the world's brightest thinkers and practitioners on irregular
warfare….‖
Exum joins CNAS having recently completed five months of field research in Lebanon. He served on
active duty in the U.S. Army from 2000 until 2004. He led a platoon of light infantry in Afghanistan in
2002 and a platoon of Army Rangers in Iraq and Afghanistan in 2003 and 2004, respectively.
Most recently, Exum served as an advisor on the CENTCOM Assessment Team. He is the author of the
book, This Man's Army: A Soldier's Story from the Frontlines of the War on Terror (Gotham, 2004) and
has published opinion pieces in the New York Times, the Washington Post, theGuardian and many other
newspapers.
Leading Counterinsurgency Blog Launched on CNAS.org

CNAS Press Release June 8, 2009
WASHINGTON, D.C., JUNE 8, 2009 – The Center for a New American Security (CNAS) is pleased to
announce that Abu Muqawama, a leading blog on issues related to defense policy, is now hosted on the
CNAS website. The founder and editor of the blog, Andrew Exum, recently joined CNAS as a fellow,
where his work focuses primarily on contemporary conflicts in the Middle East and Central Asia.
Abu Muqawama, considered a ―must-visit daily‖ blog in defense policy circles, covers issues related to
contemporary conflicts as well as evolutions in tactics and strategy. It receives over 6,000 visitors a day
from across the world and has been cited frequently by The New York Times, Foreign Policy, WIRED
magazine, Reuters and The Atlantic. …
...
55
“THIS MAN’S ARMY”

A Soldier’s Story from the Front Lines of the War on
Terrorism
Andrew Exum
(2004)
6 Playing varsity football my sophomore year … I played free safety wearing only 105 pounds but
discovered that toughness often gets you farther than size and athleticism.
...
37 … it was impossible to stay awake. I still have my Ranger Handbook from when I went through
the course, and you can tell what notes I took in Benning and what notes I took later in Florida. …. The
notes I took at Benning looked like chicken scratch …
...
14 I wrote a column each week for the school newspaper …
19 When reporting as a ―journalist‘ for the army, you quickly learn there is not news but good news.
Writing for a weekly newspaper put out by U.S. Army Cadet Command called the Warrior Leader, I put
my Ivy League English degree to use writing shallow propaganda
20 I made it a game to see just how falsely positive I could be. Reading the military articles of
Second LT Andrew M. Exum, you would think the army was an idyllic organization … At the end of the
summer, the Dept of Public Affairs in Washington DC named me one of the army‘s ―Outstanding
Journalists.‖ .. I had earned my first medal from the army for writing in a newspaper.
...
164 The bigwigs back at Bagram Airbase, monitoring the battle from cameras in the sky, had seen
him [Chief Roberts] fall from the Chinook, they told us. Then they saw Roberts rise to his feet and
attempt to flee from the chasing enemy. A firefight ensued.
Note: see AM‘s description of how at Bagram he watched the Predator footage of the Tillman friendly-
fire incident in his book review, ―He Didn‘t Come Home‖
...
198 After we returned from that mission, the higher-ranking officers and sergeants major fretted over
what the reporters might write in their stories … The seven of us were told to complete sworn statements
about what happened … It was complete bullshit. If the reporter‘s story was negative, the officers could
56
use our statements as proof that the army had already taken action and was on its way toward prosecuting
the offenders … We had done nothing wrong, as they covered their asses collecting our sworn statements,
they assured us of that.
208 I received my medal [Bronze Star] from Secretary of the Army Thomas White. [for shooting the
Taliban soldier, see p. 198. For the same incident he wrote his statement!]
199 Increasingly, being an officer in the army is no longer a temporary service to the country – it‘s a
career. Consequently, officers are often looking out for their own futures rather than for the safety and
good of their men.
...
224 In November, I moved south to Savannah [3rd Ranger Batt], where I took charge of an elite
Ranger platoon at a small base there shortly before the war in Iraq. … On Takur Ghar, several Rangers
had earned the Silver Star in the fight for Neil Robert‘s body.
226 During the first month of the war, my unit helped to rescue Private Jessica Lynch in the first
successful rescue operation of an American POW …
Note: ―My unit‖? Pat Tillman‘s platoon from the 2nd Ranger Batt pulled perimeter security there. Was
Exum‘s 3rd Batt there as well?
Back Flap: he rose to the rank of captain with the US Army Rangers before completing his military
service in May 2004. [see ref to Predator footage at Bagram]
57
―CONFIRM HIM”
On May 11, 2009 President Obama nominated Gen. Stanley McChrystal to be the new Afghan
War commander. In response, Andrew Exum wrote,
―… let's not beat around the bush: Gen. McKiernan was fired -- and fired in a very
Petraeus are as serious as a heart attack … There was very little confidence that -- with
McKiernan in charge in Afghanistan -- we the United States had the varsity squad on the
field. That all changed today. I do not know if the war in Afghanistan is winnable. But
I do know that Stan McChrystal is an automatic starter in anyone's line-up. Game on.‖
From 2003 to 2008, McChrystal led the Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC). Andrew
Exum wrote, ―I do know that many policy-makers and journalists think that McChrystal's work
as the head of the super-secret Joint Special Operations Command was the untold success story
of the Surge and the greater war on terror campaigns.‖
In addition to his black-ops experience, McChrystal has done stints as a fellow at Harvard and
the Council on Foreign Relations. His latest assignment was at the Pentagon, as Director of the
Joint Staff. Andrew Exum said, ―…General McChrystal is not a knuckle-dragging, door-kicking
Army Ranger … He's a very thoughtful general. … There is a realization that the situation in
Afghanistan is so dire … that you really need a silver bullet," Exum said. "You have one chance
to get this right, and you'd better get your A-team on the field."
...
On June 2, 2009 the Senate Armed Services Committee held their confirmation hearing for Gen.
McChrystal‘s nomination as the new Afghan War commander. In his blog post, ―Confirm
Him,‖ Andrew Exum supported Gen. McChrystal‘s confirmation:
―… while I have nothing but respect for the Tillman Family and their incredible sacrifice,
their personal grief should not be a veto on the nomination of the man the president, the
Secretary of Defense, and General Petraeus all feel gives the United States and its allies
the best chance of victory in Afghanistan … These are serious question and are more
important than either the death of Pat Tillman or the alleged abuse of detainees. … The
bottom line is, nothing is ever going to heal the wounds inflicted on the Tillman Family
by the death of Ranger Tillman and the government's clumsy handling of the situation. …
In the end, the Senate should put General McChrystal through the wringer today … And
then they should confirm him.‖
58
misjudgments -- he even warned off his high command from turning Ranger Tillman into
some great hero before all the facts were in. Those who did make mistakes have by now
been properly censured.‖
...
However, it appears that Andrew Exum was either woefully (willfully?) ignorant of the facts of
the Tillman case or was doing his part to whitewash Gen. McChrystal‘s key role in the Army‘s
cover-up of Pat Tillman‘s friendly-fire death in 2004 (see also his 11-02-09 blog post ‗On
Martial Virtue …‖) Everything he said about the Tillman case was incorrect:
1.) Far from“McChrystal was by all accounts not one of the officers in the chain of command
who made really egregious errors or misjudgments,” McChrystal played a central hands-on role
in the Army‘s cover-up.
It was hardly “by all accounts‖ McChrystal was cleared of wrong-doing. In her book, Boots on
the Ground by Dusk, Mary Tillman wrote in her book, ―Not only is he [McChrystal] lying about
the circumstances surrounding Pat‘s death, … he is proposing false language for the Silver Star
narrative.‖
And, in his paperback edition of his book, Where Men Win Glory, Jon Krakauer described how
McChrystal personally "administered the medal recommendation process" with a false narrative
that "was painstakingly written to create the impression Pat Tillman was killed by enemy fire"
and directly supervised the Ranger RGT commanders who apparently altered the two Silver Star
witness statements. The Silver Star recommendation was "fraudulent" by "any objective
measure." Instead of merely having "signed off" on a piece of paper that landed on his desk,
Gen. McChrystal had "orchestrate[d] what can only be described as a broad conspiracy to
conceal Tillman's fratricide ..."
2.) And it‘s simply false that McChrystal “… even warned off his high command from turning
Ranger Tillman into some great hero before all the facts were in.”
McChrystal himself turned Tillman into a hero with his false Silver Star recommendation. True,
McChrystal did send a P4 memo ―warning‖ President Bush to avoid referencing Tillman‘s
heroism. But that was a week after the 15-6 investigating officer CPT Scott verbally passed
confirmation of friendly-fire up the chain of command to McChrystal. Some ―warning‖!
59
3.) Exum falsely asserted that, ―Those who did make mistakes have by now been properly
censured.”
True, Gen. Kensinger lost a star (and a little retirement pay) as the Army‘s designated scapegoat.
But, what happened to the Ranger RGT officers who had their "hands-on" the ensuing cover-up? COL
Nixon got his star. LTC Bailey got full-bird (recently got his star). LTC Kauzlarich got full-bird. And,
Gen. McChrystal was promoted three times ending up as a four-star.
Meanwhile, what happened to platoon leader LT Uthlaut (First Captain, top of his West Point Class)
who was ordered to split his platoon and ―put boots on the ground by dusk‖ over his protests? He was
offered up as a low-ranking scapegoat and kicked out of the Ranger Battalion for his ―failure‖ to control
his platoon during the Pat Tillman's ―friendly fire‖ incident (Uthlaut was shot in the face by the same
friendly fire that killed Pat Tillman and medivaced).
4.) “full disclosure: I was in Afghanistan, with the Rangers, at the time, so I am hardly
objective here …”
Exactly. Exum was ―hardly objective here‖ given that he was a Ranger officer serving under the
same Ranger RGT officers who had their hands-on the Tillman cover-up. It‘s not surprising that
Exum would make excuses or cover for his fellow Ranger officers.
...
**** Add old or UTS version of teach to lie yet

Did They Teach You How to Lie Yet? (May 27, 2009)
Senate hearing June 2
AND place into Appendices 1 page summary of each about letter sent
60
McChrystal Represents a New Direction at the Pentagon and in

Afghanistan
Joshua Kucera, U.S. News and World Report – May 18, 2009
… Defense Secretary Robert Gates's announcement that McKiernan was asked to resign (fired,
in military-ese) and would be replaced by Lt. Gen. Stanley McChrystal sent shock waves around
the Pentagon. McChrystal's core experience is in the shadowy world of special operations: From
2003 to 2008, he led the Joint Special Operations Command, including the forces that killed Abu
Musab Zarqawi, the leader of Al Qaeda in Iraq.
… The mission in Afghanistan requires many skills other than "shooting people and blowing
things up," said Andrew Exum, …"But I think General McChrystal is a nimble-enough intellect
to understand this. General McChrystal is not a knuckle-dragging, door-kicking Army Ranger
… He's a very thoughtful general." In addition to his black-ops experience, McChrystal has done
stints as a fellow at Harvard and the Council on Foreign Relations. His latest assignment is at the
Pentagon, as director of the Joint Staff.
… "There is a realization that the situation in Afghanistan is so dire, and the challenges so
complex, that you really need a silver bullet," Exum said. "You have one chance to get this right,
and you'd better get your A-team on the field."
McKiernan Out, McChrystal In

Andrew Exum, Foreign Policy's The Argument -- May 12, 2009
… I heard rumors that McChrystal might replace McKiernan only last Friday, when a senior U.S.
policy-maker cornered me and asked me what I thought of McChrystal. That's kind of like
asking a rifleman in the French Army what he thinks of Napoleon. Although I indeed served
under McChrystal's command in both Iraq and Afghanistan, I do not know him personally and
was but one cog in a giant machine at the time.
I do know that many policy-makers and journalists think that McChrystal's work as the head of
the super-secret Joint Special Operations Command was the untold success story of the Surge
and the greater war on terror campaigns. I also know that McChrystal and David Petraeus forged
a close working relationship in Iraq in 2007 and have much respect for one another.
… Second, let's not beat around the bush: Gen. McKiernan was fired -- and fired in a very
61
Petraeus are as serious as a heart attack about a shift in strategy in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
This was ruthless … The sad truth of the matter is that people have been calling for McKiernan's
head for some time now. … There was very little confidence that -- with McKiernan in charge in
Afghanistan -- we the United States had the varsity squad on the field. That all changed today.
I do not know if the war in Afghanistan is winnable. But I do know that Stan McChrystal is an
automatic starter in anyone's line-up. Game on.
...
Commander's Intent: Lt. General Stanley McChrystal

Marc Ambinder, The Atlantic – May 12, 2009
McChrystal must be confirmed by the Senate … Knowing how savvy the Defense Secretary is,
it's hard to imagine that McChrystal would have gotten the appointment if he'd been mixed up in
potential misconduct or extra-legal behavior that Congress could uncover. The only public
blight on McChrystal's record is his role in the cover-up of Army Ranger Pat Tillman's death.
Congress will be interested to hear him speak about this -- it's hard to get the JSOC commander
to testify in public, which was why McChrystal has not spoken about the affair in public -- but
his confirmation will probably not be jeopardized by this incident alone.
*****
ADD Nomination … Revives Questions in Tillman Case. (May 26, 2009)
62
“Did They Teach You How to Lie Yet”

*** use UTS version?
Jon Krakauer‘s book, ―Where Men Win Glory,‖ ends with Congressman Henry Waxman unable
to determine who was responsible for the cover-up of Pat Tillman‘s friendly-fire death because
of stonewalling by the Bush White House. Congressman Waxman states in frustration, ―What
we have is a very clear, deliberate abuse intentionally done. Why is it so hard to find out who
did it?‖
Krakauer properly cast blame on the top leadership of the Army and the White House that ―…
used every means at its disposal to obstruct the congressional investigation into Tillman‘s death
and its aftermath…‖ But, his account of the cover-up ended far too soon with Bush‘s press
conference August 9, 2007. The cover-up actually continued up through the June 2, 2009
confirmation hearing of General McChrystal as the Commander of the Afghan War.
Blaming Bush and the Army for the cover-up, with the Democratic Congress as the champions in
pursuit of the truth is too simple. In reality, the cover-up has been a thoroughly bipartisan affair,
with Congress and the Obama Presidency continuing to protect especially General McChrystal
from punishment and to shield his actions from scrutiny. Just as with warrantless wiretapping
and torture, those responsible have not been held accountable. ―They‘re moving forward, not
looking back.‖
Just before the Senate‘s June confirmation hearing for General McChrystal, I wrote a 100-page
document, “Did They Teach How You to Lie Yet – Senator James Webb, General Stanley
McChrystal, and the Betrayal of Pat Tillman.‖ I argued that the top leadership of the Army,
Congressman Henry Waxman‘s House Oversight Committee, and the Senate Armed Services
Committee (especially Senator James Webb, Senator Carl Levin, and Senator McCain) acted to
shield McChrystal from scrutiny and protect him from punishment for his actions.
Perhaps Krakauer was credulous in taking Congressman Waxman‘s rhetoric at face value.
Waxman‘s so-called ―investigation‖ (like the DoD IG report) was not an honest attempt to get at
the truth. Despite the concerns raised by his Committee during their April 2007 hearing about
the falsified Silver Star, P4 document, etc. they never looked further into McChrystal‘s role, who
was at the very center of these actions.
And testimony during the August hearing was a ―praise-fest‖ for McChrystal. Perhaps after his
April 2007 Tillman hearing, Congressman Waxman got the word the ―fix‖ was in, to lay off
McChrystal. Shortly before his August 2007 Tillman hearing, McChrystal was dropped from the
list of witnesses and never interviewed despite his central role in the cover-up.
...
During Spring 2008, after he received my letter imploring him to help Mary Tillman, Senator
James Webb conducted a secret ―review‖ of McChrystal‘s role in the aftermath of Tillman‘s
death. On May 15th 2008, while Mary Tillman was in Washington, D.C. on her book tour, the
63
Senate Armed Services Committee (headed by Levin and McCain) held a secret ―executive
session‖ where McChrystal testified ―in detail about his actions behind closed doors. Shortly
afterwards, the Senate promoted him to Director of the Joint Staff.
Senator James‘s Webb betrayal of the Tillman family cuts me the deepest. I‘ve trusted his sense
of honor for thirty years. If anyone in Congress should have cared, it would have been him. For
example, Webb, as a young Marine veteran spent 8 years to clear the name of a dead Marine for
his mother‘s sake!
I‘m hard on Webb not because I dislike the man, but that I‘m disappointed by him. As an old
man and politician, he‘s turned into exactly what he once reviled as a young soldier! And I‘m
certainly not casting all the blame for the sins of Congress onto him. Henry Waxman, Chairman
Carl Levin, Senator McCain, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid and others in Congress bear greater
responsible than Webb. It just happens I know more about Webb and his role and have had
personal interactions with his office.
...
On May 12th 2009, President Obama fired General McKiernan (rather ironic given that some
were calling for Obama to fire McChrystal for insubordination this past September!) and
handpicked McChrystal to be his new commander of the Afghan War and for promotion to the
Army‘s highest rank.
(Ironically, the following day, Obama gave the commencement address at Arizona State
University inside Sun Devil Stadium without once mentioning Pat Tillman! I‘d assume that
President Obama didn‘t want to bring up Tillman‘s name to avoid anyone pointing out the
connection to McChrystal‘s nomination. [see the Arizona Republic‘s Bob Young‘s 5-17-09
“Obama’s Big-Time Fumble”).
After a pro forma June 2nd hearing by the Senate Armed Services Committee, the Senate
(begged to do so by Senator Reid) confirmed McChrystal‘s promotion by unanimous consent on
June 12th.
...
It‘s not surprising that after the initial fratricide cover-up fell apart, Army officers and the Bush
administration lied to protect their careers. Reprehensible, but understandable. But the
Democratic Congress, after they took control of both Houses in 2006, could have gone after
those responsible. Or at least not promoted them!
During the April 24th 2007 Congressional hearing, Mary Tillman said, ―… Congress is supposed
to take care of their citizens. … Pat died for this country, and he believed it was a great country
that had a system that worked. It is not perfect. No one has ever said that. But there is a system in
place to allow for it to work, and your job is to find out what happened to Pat.‖
At McChrystal‘s June 2009 confirmation hearing, Senator James Webb read from a 2005 letter
from Pat Tillman, Sr. (Pat‘s father): ―No investigator worth a damn would have made the
64
presentation I sat through unless they had an agenda different from the truth. … No one has been
confronted with their conduct. The issue of importance is the integrity of the military from the
lieutenant colonel on the ground all the way up and past General Jones [3rd investigator].‖
General McChrystal acknowledged during his testimony that he and the Army had ―failed the
family‖. In Senator James Webb‘s 1983 novel, A Country Such As This, Congressman Judd
Smith argued: ―And no, the military isn‘t just fine. The point is, it isn‘t corrupt. It‘s a system
with human failures.‖
But when ―human failures‖ systematically extend up every single link in the chain-of-command
(to include the Chair of the Joint Chiefs, Army Chief of Staff, and the Secretary of Defense) up
to and including the White House, how is this not a corrupt country? Every single institution in
this country has failed the Tillman family, including the Army leadership, Congress, White
House and the mainstream media.
Perhaps Senator Rowland, in Senator James Webb's novel, Something to Die For, hit the nail on
the head:
―How lofty it must have been to have burnt with the purity of the Revolution! Before the
days of multi-million dollar election campaigns that brought politicians to their knees
before the monied temple of the contributors. Before the time of computerized politics
that cause them to await the wisdom of those oracles known as pollsters before they
spoke. Or maybe it had been trash from the get-go, myths to feed the public.‖
******
Confirm Him
June 2, 2009 | Posted by Abu Muqawama - 9:29am | 69 Comments
Like many of you, I too will be watching today's examination of General Stan McChrystal by the
Senate Armed Services Committee. … I am very much hoping the hearing today focuses on the
first two issues to the exclusion of the second two [torture and Pat Tillman]. Which is not to say
the second two questions do not matter -- they do. But unless General McChrystal is found to
have personally directed his men to abuse detainees in order to extract intelligence -- or did not
take appropriate action to halt the abuse once he discovered it was taking place -- this should
not be a serious roadblock to confirmation. …
And with respect to the Tillman Affair (full disclosure: I was in Afghanistan, with the Rangers,
at the time, so I am hardly objective here), McChrystal was by all accounts not one of the
officers in the chain of command who made really egregious errors or misjudgments -- he even
65
warned off his high command from turning Ranger Tillman into some great hero before all the
facts were in. Those who did make mistakes have by now been properly censured. The bottom
line is, nothing is ever going to heal the wounds inflicted on the Tillman Family by the death of
Ranger Tillman and the government's clumsy handling of the situation. … And while I have
nothing but respect for the Tillman Family and their incredible sacrifice, their personal grief
should not be a veto on the nomination of the man the president, the Secretary of Defense, and
General Petraeus all feel gives the United States and its allies the best chance of victory in
Afghanistan …
Today is an opportunity for the Senate to focus the eyes of the nation back on Afghanistan and
demand of General McChrystal how, exactly, he intends to carry out the president's strategy.
…These are serious question and are more important than either the death of Pat Tillman or the
alleged abuse of detainees. (And this blog has, for the record, always taken a firm stance against
torture.) In the end, the Senate should put General McChrystal through the wringer today …
And then they should confirm him.
Update: … Just to clarify matters, I do not expect the Senate to rubber-stamp this appointment
… I just feel the seriousness of the situation in Afghanistan -- and the fact that our defense
leaders feel General McChrystal is the right man to address those challenges -- should be
foremost in the minds of policy-makers as they consider McChrystal's nomination.
*******
General McChrystal’s June 2nd Confirmation Hearing
Clearly, despite Andrew Exum‘s background as an Army Ranger officer in Afghanistan, he was
a poor choice to review Jon Krakauer‘s book. He simply has too many personal and professional
conflicts of interest with General McChrystal. And, Exum hasn‘t done his due diligence and
done any significant research into the Tillman case.
Just before McChrystal‘s June 2nd confirmation hearing, Exum wrote ―Confirm Him‖ in his blog:
―… with respect to the Tillman Affair (full disclosure: I was in Afghanistan, with the
misjudgments -- he even warned off his high command from turning Ranger Tillman
into some great hero before all the facts were in. Those who did make mistakes have
by now been properly censured.‖
66
grief should not be a veto on the nomination of the man the president, the Secretary of
Defense, and General Petraeus all feel gives the United States and its allies the best
chance of victory in Afghanistan‖ … These are serious questions and are more important
than either the death of Pat Tillman or the alleged abuse of detainees.‖
Despite Exum‘s assertion that McChrystal was ―probably the least culpable guy in Tillman's
chain of command‖ the evidence is overwhelming that McChrystal played a key role in the
cover-up of Tillman‘s fratricide.
Unlike Exum, I know what I‘m talking about. I‘ve closely followed the Tillman case the past
four years and have examined the reports from the various Army, IG and Congressional
―investigations.‖ The evidence shows that McChrystal was probably the most culpable General
officer involved in the Tillman case: McChrystal received confirmation of Tillman‘s fratricide
within two days, had the responsibility to tell the family, made the decision not to tell the family
about fratricide, and he supervised the writing of the ―misleading‖ Silver Star award, then sent
his ―timely‖ prevaricating P4 memo a week after he learned of the fratricide.
******
Despite Exum‘s assertion that McChrystal was ―probably the least culpable guy in Tillman's
chain of command‖ the evidence is overwhelming that McChrystal played a key role in the
cover-up of Tillman‘s fratricide and was probably the most culpable General officer involved in
the Tillman cover-up.
*** point to stuff, add other critique such as knew a week after, #1 in class, Bailey
Unlike Exum, I know what I‘m talking about. I‘ve closely followed the Tillman case the past
four years and have examined the reports from the various Army, IG and Congressional
―investigations.‖
I believe Andrew Exum is either awfully good at feigning self-righteous outrage or is woefully
(and willfully) ignorant of the most basic facts of the Tillman case. Quite possibly, Exum
believes his own bullshit about General McChrystal. As the saying goes, "It is difficult to get a
man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it."
67
Foreign Relations.
*** May 26th, June 2nd, Lies borne out, missing article
During November 2009, Eric Schmitt and Thom Shanker joined CNAS as Senior Writers in
Residence; ―Working closely with CNAS scholars and leadership, Writers in Residence can take
advantage of the full spectrum of the Center‘s resources and expertise. …‖ During their stay at
CNAS, they worked on a book titled Counterstrike, an examination of special operations
counterterrorism in Afghanistan and Iraq.
...
morning."
Well, I don't have any respect for New York Times Washington Pentagon reporter Thom
Shanker. … I corresponded with him last year just before Gen. McChrystal's Senate
confirmation hearing. I pointed out just how McChrystal played the central role in the
Army's whitewash of the Tillman case. What did he do with it? Nothing, just printed the
same falsehoods (although the NYT "disappeared" his hearing article shortly after it
appeared on the blogosphere).
...
“Alter's „journalism‟ more closely resembles court stenography than a public service.”
Carl Prine: Coming from a CNAS voice, that's rich. Perhaps CENTCOM might get him
to join a Joint Strategic Assessment Team or pen books while serving fellowships at the
think tank. That will cure his ethical ailments. Are you serious?
Last fall, Shanker worked on his book while a "writer in residence" at CNAS. Last year,
he wrote a piece clearing McChrystal of all wrongdoing in the aftermath of Tillman's
death. ("May 26, 2009 - "Nomination of U.S. Afghan Commander Revives Questions in
68
Tillman Case") despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. There's some

stenography for you!
...
against the strategy? This is just awful media management, because the writer neither gives a
flip as to whether or not his article might complicate the success of the mission nor has any
interest in lending any balance to his own conclusions. Head slap."
Exactly. Why risk talking to someone you can't count on being a stenographer for the
powers-that-be? Perhaps AM's was referring to Thom Shanker when he wrote "someone
At, say, the New York Times"?
Thom Shanker is the NYT Washington Pentagon Reporter who wrote the May 26th
article that "exonerated" Gen. McChrystal of all wrong-doing in the Tillman case.
Absolute BS, of which Shanker is well aware. But, apparently this sucking up is
necessary to retain "access". What a piece of work.
...
“… this would likely not have happened had Michael Hastings, the Rolling Stone reporter, not
been a free-lance. The logic is that a reporter from the New York Times or the Washington Post
would have been more servile to the people they cover because they do not want to burn their
sources. After enduring some members of the White House press corps who do, frankly, seem to
exchange favorable coverage of the administration for access, I can understand their
complaint.‖
“You don't think that a journalist covering the war in Afghanistan who feels the war should be
undermined in any way possible is slightly problematic given the American tradition of
objectivity in journalism?...”
Your post [―A New Standard for Objective Journalism at the CJR?‖] bemoaned the lack
Thom Shanker is a perfect example of such journalism as stenography, never subjecting

the lies of his sources to critical analysis, no matter how stupid. You mentioned Thom's
working on a book on special operations. He spent a month as a "writer-in-residence" last
November at CNAS working on that book. A little payback for his 5-26-09 NYT article
"exonerating" Gen. McChrystal of all wrong-doing in the Tillman case?
69
“Nominee To Command U.S. Afghanistan Forces Stresses Civilian Safety “
Thom Shanker and Eric Schmitt, The New York Times -- June 2, 2009
2009-06-02 16:02:50 (18 hours ago) Posted By: Intellpuke
Submit to Digg
The Special Operations general nominated to be commander of American and allied troops
in Afghanistan testified on Tuesday that coalition forces must reduce civilian casualties, a step
that is ―essential to our credibility.‖
The commander, Lt. Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, said that ―how we conduct operations is
vital to success,‖ and warned that any victory would be ―hollow and unsustainable‖ if allied
operations created popular resentment among Afghanistan‘s citizens.
In testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee, General McChrystal said the
measure of American and allied effectiveness would be ―the number of Afghans shielded from
violence,‖ not the number of enemies killed.
Even so, strikes by warplanes and Special Operations ground units would remain an essential
part of combat in Afghanistan, said General McChrystal. He pledged to make sure these attacks
would be ordered only based on solid intelligence, and would be as ―precise‖ as possible.
General McChrystal formerly served as commander of the Joint Special Operations Command,
whose hunter-killer units scored significant successes in Iraq and Afghanistan, and he was
questioned about reports of abuse of detainees held by his commandos.
When he took command of these units in 2003, the general said, the Special Operations detention
facilities in Afghanistan were limited and disorganized, and the forces involved in the detention
mission lacked experience.
Under questioning by Senator Carl Levin, the Michigan Democrat who is the committee
chairman, General McChrystal said that he ―was uncomfortable‖ with some of the harsh
techniques that were officially approved for interrogations. At the time, the approved techniques
included placing detainees in stress positions, sleep deprivation and use of attack dogs.
He said that while he was in command, all reports of abuse were investigated, and all
substantiated cases resulted in disciplinary action. He pledged to ―strictly enforce‖ American and
international standards for treatment of battlefield detainees if he is confirmed to the post in
70
Afghanistan.
―I do not and never have condoned mistreatment of detainees, and never will,‖ said General
McChrystal.
―Unfortunately, criminal acts take place on the battlefield, just like they do in normal society,‖
General McChrystal said in separate, prepared answers to questions submitted by the committee.
―Fortunately, through improved training and education, substantiated allegations of abuse have
decreased over time.‖
If confirmed, General McChrystal said, he would take a number of steps to improve detention
operations.
Among them, he said, would be efforts to ―separate and segregate the extremists,‖ and to ―impart
basic education and vocational skills‖ to detainees. Troops would be ordered to ―develop a
moderate understanding of Islam,‖ the general said, and he would continue the use of extended
family members and tribal groups ―to aid in a released detainee‘s abstention from violence.‖
Under questioning from Sen. John McCain, of Arizona, the committee’s ranking
Republican, General McChrystal discussed his actions following the friendly-fire death of
Cpl. Pat Tillman, the professional football star who enlisted in the Army after the attacks
of Sept. 11, 2001.
General McChrystal expressed his “deepest condolences” to the Tillman family and to
Corporal Tillman’s fellow Rangers, and acknowledged that he would do things differently
if presented again with such a tragedy.
[1] A four-star Army review cleared General McChrystal of any wrongdoing, but it
punished a number of senior officers who were responsible for administrative mistakes in
the days following the death of Corporal Tillman.
[2] General McChrystal explained that he signed a Silver Star recommendation, even
though he already suspected death by friendly fire, because Corporal Tillman’s valor in the
field earned him the honor regardless of the manner of his death. However, the general
acknowledged that the recommendation produced confusion.
[3] At the time, Army policy was to rush those medals of valor so they could be received by
the family at the time of the honored soldier’s funeral; that policy has been changed to
allow more thorough evaluations.
[4] General McChrystal said that within a week of Corporal Tillman’s death, he sent an
urgent message to his three senior commanders specifically to inform them of mounting
evidence of death by friendly fire, and to push the Army to quickly halt any
misinformation regarding Corporal Tillman’s death.
[5] Sen. James Webb, a Virginia Democrat who has championed the Tillman’s family case,
71
returned to the topic late in the hearing during a heartfelt exchange in which the Senator
chastised the Army for its initial incorrect reports that Corporal Tillman was killed in an
insurgent ambush, and not by fire from his own Ranger unit.
“The Army failed the family,” said Senator Webb.
[6] “We failed the family,” General McChrystal agreed. “I was a part of that, and I
apologize,” but the general repeatedly stated that any errors committed by soldiers and
officers in the field of combat in Afghanistan “were not intentional,” and he added, “I
didn’t see any activities by anyone to deceive.”
Senator Levin called for strong cooperation between General McChrystal and Adm. James G.
Stavridis, who also testified Tuesday; the admiral has been nominated to become NATO's
supreme allied commander and commander of American forces in Europe. If confirmed, Admiral
Stavridis would be the first Navy officer to hold that position.
NATO supplies the majority of the nearly 35,000 non-American troops in Afghanistan, but
Senator Levin said that ―only a portion are in the fight where the fight mainly is - in the south
and east of Afghanistan.‖
The NATO contribution to the Afghan mission ―remains inadequate,‖ Senator Levin said. He
urged Admiral Stavridis to do all he could to press ―NATO and other allies in Europe to do their
share for the Afghanistan mission.‖
Under President Obama's new Afghan strategy, the number of American troops in the country
will double to about 68,000 this year.
Intellpuke: You can read this article by New York Times staff writers Thom Shanker and Eric
Schmitt, reporting from Washington, D.C., in context here:
www.nytimes.com/2009/06/03/world/asia/03military.html?_r=1&hp
[Note: This article was changed before the evening of June 2nd to the version that appears on
June 3rd, ― U.S. Report finds Errors in Afghan Airstrikes‖. This is a cached copy from a
website.]
...
Killing Bad Guys Civilians

Afghanistan is all over the news today, and not all of what is reported is good. To begin, a
U.S. military report has concluded that U.S. soldiers and airmen were at fault for civilian
deaths in a 4 May air strike which provoked outrage among Afghans.
...
72
Note: The ―U.S. military report‖ links to Eric Schmitt & Thom Shanker‘s NYT article ―U.S.
Report Finds Errors in Afghan Airstrikes‖ (6-02-09). Shortly after McChrystal‘s Senate
hearing, this article replaced Thom Shanker‘s original article ―*****that covered McChrystal‘s
Senate confirmation hearing (Shanker‘s article ―disappeared‖; I‘ve got a copy at *******).
*****
Cover immediate aftermath of hearing,
Add missing article here June 2
“LIES BORNE OUT BY FACTS, IF NOT THE TRUTH”
**** Check UTS for diff. version

The New York Time‘s has also played a role in whitewashing McChrystal‘s role in the cover-up
of Pat Tillman‘s friendly-fire death. Last May, the New York Times Pentagon Reporter Thom
Shanker wrote a piece clearing McChrystal of all wrongdoing in the aftermath of Tillman's
death. ("May 26, 2009 "Nomination of U.S. Afghan Commander Revives Questions in Tillman
Case") despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
During Kevin Tillman‘s testimony before the April 2007 House hearing, he said:
―… while each investigation gathered more information, the mountain of evidence was
never used to arrive at an honest or even sensible conclusion … Writing a Silver Star
award before a single eye witness account is taken is not a misstep. Falsifying soldier
witness statements for a Silver Star is not a misstep. … Discarding an (15-6)
investigation that does not fit a preordained conclusion is not an error in judgment. These
are deliberate acts of deceit. This is not the perception of concealment. This is
concealment.‖
The week before McChrystal's June 2nd Senate confirmation hearing, I corresponded with
Shanker and sent him my binder "Did They Teach You How to Lie Yet? -- Senator James Webb,
General Stanley McChrystal, and the Betrayal of Pat Tillman" which laid out how McChrystal
played a key role in the Tillman cover-up and how the Democratic Congress protected
McChrystal. I gently pointed out how Shanker's article was full of "lies ... borne out by facts, if
not the truth." However, Thom Shanker never corrected his errors in his subsequent coverage of
73
the Tillman story. And despite his praise for my work, he refused to engage any of the
substantive points I raised with his coverage of the Tillman story.
The NYT Public Editor Clark Hoyt didn't do a thing with the binder I sent last September
spelling this all out in excruciating detail, "Lies ... Borne Out by Facts, If Not the Truth" -- Thom
Shanker, The New York Times and the Whitewashing of General McChrystal's Role in the
Aftermath of Pat Tillman's Death.
I didn‘t come away from my personal experience with Thom Shanker and ―The Gray Lady‖ with
any confidence in our ―watchdog‖ media. (I‘d like to point out that Thom Shanker also
participated in the misinformation about the Jessica Lynch story in 2003).
Coincidentally, Thom Shanker (and the rest of the NYT) have since enjoyed exceptional good
access to McChyrstal. Ironically, this past November, Thom Shanker was recently a "writer in
residence" at your own CNAS which has a close relationship with both Generals Petraeus and
McChrystal! Isn't the Washington establishment so cozy? What's the difference between the
media, the government, and the "independent" think-tanks such as your CNAS? It appears to be
all one big incestous blob.
******
Top National Security Reporters Eric Schmitt & Thom Shanker

Join CNAS as Writers in Residence
CNAS -- October 15, 2009
The Center for a New American Security (CNAS) is pleased to announce that distinguished
journalists Eric Schmitt and Thom Shanker, who cover terrorism, the military, and national
security for The New York Times, will join CNAS as Senior Writers in Residence in November
2009.
While at CNAS, Schmitt and Shanker will work on a book titled "Counterstrike," an examination
of the evolution of American counterterrorism strategy since the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. …
Working closely with CNAS scholars and leadership, Writers in Residence can take advantage of
the full spectrum of the Center‘s resources and expertise. …
74
Foreign Relations.

reading -- although not necessarily for the reasons the author intended. … As veteran media
critics have noted, a growing number of "journalists" have exchanged ridiculously uncritical
coverage of this administration for the kind of high-level access necessary to write "insider"
books on the administration. This article is -- surprise! -- an excerpt from one of those insider
accounts. Nothing in this article seriously challenges the administration's version of events, …
Alter's "journalism" more closely resembles court stenography than a public service.
...
Comment by Carl Prine on May 17, 2010 - 5:18pm
'Alter's "journalism" more closely resembles court stenography than a public service.*'
Coming from a CNAS voice, that's rich. Perhaps CENTCOM might get him to join a Joint
Strategic Assessment Team or pen books while serving fellowships at the think tank.
That will cure his ethical ailments.
Are you serious?
Comment by Visitor [Guy Montag] on May 17, 2010 - 8:17pm
@ Carl Prine: ―Alter's "journalism" more closely resembles court stenography than a public
service.' Coming from a CNAS voice, that's rich. Perhaps CENTCOM might get him to join a
Joint Strategic Assessment Team or pen books while serving fellowships at the think tank"
75
"Perhaps CENTCOM might get him to join a Joint Strategic Assessment Team" refers to AM's
field trip last summer ("'This [Afghan War Assessment] was written with about a dozen talented
and good-natured co-authors (and the world's most intense lead author [General McChrystal])
who put up with my smart-assery -- often in enclosed spaces-- for a whole month".)
Does "... or pen books while serving fellowships at the think tank" refer to the NYT's Pentagon
Reporter Thom Shanker? Last fall, Shanker worked on his book while a "writer in residence" at
CNAS. Last year, he wrote a piece clearing McChrystal of all wrongdoing in the aftermath of
Tillman's death. ("May 26, 2009 "Nomination of U.S. Afghan Commander Revives Questions in
Tillman Case") despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. There's some stenography for
you!
Journalist FAIL
June 15, 2010 | Posted by Abu Muqawama - 4:13pm | 37 Comments
I was not among those who criticized the article James Risen wrote about the $1 trillion mineral
find in Afghanistan. … I really respect the men and women who report on national security
issues for our daily newspapers and still subscribe to an old-fashioned newspaper that arrives on
my doorstep each morning. And I grew up in the newspaper industry.
...
Comment by Guy Montag on June 17, 2010 - 12:32pm
morning."
...
Well, I don't have any respect for the New York Times Washington Pentagon reporter Thom
Shanker. After his May 26, 2009 article which "exonerated" McChrystal of all wrong-doing in
the Pat Tillman case, I corresponded with him last year just before Gen. McChrystal's Senate
confirmation hearing. I pointed out just how McChrystal played the central role in the Army's
whitewash of the Tillman case.
What did he do with it? Nothing, just printed the same falsehoods (although the NYT
"disappeared" his hearing article shortly after it appeared on the blogosphere).
P.S. By the way, Thom Shanker was put up by CNAS as their "writer-in-residence last fall.
...
76
Rolling Stone
No, I have not read the Rolling Stone article on Gen. McChrystal. … I have now read the article,
… and it is not good. … What the hell was Duncan Boothby thinking setting up this article with
a freelance writer (who can burn bridges more easily than someone at, say, the New York Times)
who already has bias against the strategy? This is just awful media management …
...
against the strategy? This is just awful media management, because the writer neither gives a flip
as to whether or not his article might complicate the success of the mission nor has any interest
in lending any balance to his own conclusions. Head slap."
...
Exactly. Why risk talking to someone you can't count on being a stenographer for the powers-
that-be? Perhaps AM's was referring to Thom Shanker when he wrote "someone at, say, the New
York Times"?
Thom Shanker is the NYT Washington Pentagon Reporter who wrote the May 26th article that
"exonerated" Gen. McChrystal of all wrong-doing in the Tillman case. Absolute BS, of which
Shanker is well aware. But, apparently this sucking up is necessary to retain "access".
What a piece of work.
Beers on the Table: Journalists and the Public Figures They Cover
Now that Gen. McChrystal is gone and consensus has formed that President Obama was well
within his rights to have fired him, it's worth going back and looking anew at the Rolling Stone
piece that got him fired. …others seized on a comment in the Politico that this would likely not
have happened had Michael Hastings, the Rolling Stone reporter, not been a free-lance. The logic
is that a reporter from the New York Times or the Washington Post would have been more
servile to the people they cover because they do not want to burn their sources. After enduring
77
some members of the White House press corps who do, frankly, seem to exchange favorable
coverage of the administration for access, I can understand their complaint.
A New Standard for Objective Journalism at the CJR?

August 2, 2010 | Posted by Abu Muqawama - 3:55pm | 38 Comments
I work as a defense policy analyst at a think tank. I get paid to do research and then give
informed opinions about issues of interest to policy-makers. Those policy-makers can either
accept my recommendations or, more often than not, reject them. Last week, Joel Meares went
after me on the Columbia Journalism Review's blog, which is fair game even though I am not a
journalist and the piece of work he was criticizing was an analysis piece commissioned by the
opinion page of the New York Times. This week, though, Mears interviewed my friend Nir
Rosen, who is a journalist, and who said the following about the Wikileaks episode that frankly
caused my jaw to drop:
"I think undermining that war in any way possible is a good thing."
Okay, CJR, Whisky Tango Foxtrot: Are you an anti-war blog or are you a blog focused on issues
related to journalism and war reporting? Because I both like your blog and also like Nir a lot, but
his statement sure as hell would have prompted a follow-up question about the line between
activism and journalism. You don't think that a journalist covering the war in Afghanistan who
feels the war should be undermined in any way possible is slightly problematic given the
American tradition of objectivity in journalism? Did you really just let that comment slide
completely unchallenged?
Incorporating Direct Action Special Operations into COIN

August 2, 2010 | Posted by Abu Muqawama - 4:26pm | 13 Comments
An American friend from the Middle East who has recently spent time covering the war in
Afghanistan had the same question I did upon reading this article in the New York Times: "How
can my colleagues not understand that COIN involves killing?"
First off, I note this article was not written by Thom Shanker and Eric Schmitt, both of whom
have reported extensively on U.S. special operations in Afghanistan and Iraq for the New York
Times and who are writing a book together on the subject.
Second, direct-action special operations played an integral and well-documented role in U.S.
counterinsurgency operations [by JSOC led by Gen. McChrystal] in Iraq during the Baghdad
security operations of 2007. They are most effective, in fact, when incorporated into a larger
operational framework such as counterinsurgency. I wrote a short piece on the false dichotomy
78
between "COIN" and "CT" for this blog's responsible cousins at the Small Wars Journal last
year. Click here (.pdf) to read it. Because I was shaking my head as vigorously as anyone else as
I read that article this past weekend.
...
Comment by Guy Montag on August 2, 2010 - 6:35pm
Your previous post [―A New Standard for Objective Journalism at the CJR?‖] bemoaned the lack
Thom Shanker is a perfect example of such journalism as stenography, never subjecting the lies
of his sources to critical analysis, no matter how stupid. You mentioned Thom's working on a
book on special operations. He spent a month as a "writer-in-residence" last November at CNAS
working on that book. A little payback for his 5-26-09 NYT article "exonerating" Gen.
McChrystal of all wrong-doing in the Tillman case?
On Bacevich, Part I
September 6, 2010 | Posted by Abu Muqawama - 2:26pm | 90 Comments
… This post, though, is a brief review of Bacevich's new book, Washington Rules: America's
Path to Permanent War. Overall, I enjoyed the book -- though not as much as his earlier one,
The Limits of Power -- and recommend it. Let me divide up my comments, though, into the
good, the bad and the ugly:
… For Bacevich, "Washington" is not just the 202 area code or the federal government, but
"think tanks ... interest groups ... lawyers, lobbyists, fixers, former officials ... retired military
officers ... big banks and other financial institutions, defense contractors and major
corporations, television networks ... The New York Times ... the Council on Foreign Relations
and Harvard's Kennedy School of Government."
This is all so similar to one of the mistakes John Mearsheimer and Steven Walt made with
their book about "The Israel Lobby." Had they confined their field of inquiry to the activities
and effects of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, they might have written an
interesting and probably dull article. Instead, they constructed a massive conspiracy "lobby"
including everyone from think tanks to professors to -- you guess it! -- the New York Times. I
do not think casting such a wide net helped their cause, and I do not think it helps that of
Bacevich either.
79
… "A young man in a hurry is nearly uneducable," he writes. This is certainly true. Equally
true is that "better was a poor and wise youth than an old and foolish king who no longer
knew how to take advice." I worry Bacevich has not become more open minded through his
"education" but rather just as close minded as before -- but on another end of the ideological
spectrum.
...
Comment by Guy Montag on September 7, 2010 - 11:52am
"If I were him, I would just own the term "isolationist" and let the haters hate."
I have to agree with you here. But, I believe the "isolationists" of WWII (e.g. Charles Lindbergh,
Robinson Jeffers, etc) had the better part of the argument but were trashed unfairly (at the time,
and continuing today).
...
"The New York Times" as part of "Washington' conspiracy/lobby?
Sure, last year I had first-hand experience with the NYT Pentagon reporter Thom Shanker
carrying water for the COIN establishment, "exonerating" Gen. McChrystal of all wrong-doing
in the Pat Tillman case (and AM contributed a bit as well with his WP review last year deriding
Krakauer's book as full of "conspiracy" theories).
If your readers want to read more, take a look at "The [Untold] Tillman Story" -- President
Obama & the Bipartisan Whitewash of Gen. Stanley McChrystal at
http://www.feralfirefighter.blogspot.com
...
"A young man in a hurry is nearly uneducable"
If the shoe fits, wear it. To further your education, I'd suggest viewing "The Tillman Story"
which is now showing in DC. I'd love to see your review of that film (which your father refuses
to watch because he "knows" it's wrong without even watching it!; perhaps the old aren't much
better at being educable? Hopefully not a genetic trait that runs in your family).
80
Abu Muqawama Goes All Mushy on McChrystal
After Gen. McChrystal‘s June 2, 2009 Senate confirmation of his promotion to commander
of the Afghan war, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates gave him 60 days to conduct another
review of the American strategy there, the fifth since President Barack Obama took office
less than five months ago.
McChrystal selected Andrew Exum to serve on his Afghan assessment team and he spent a
month ―touring Afghanistan by periscope‖ with a ―… dozen talented and good-natured co-
authors (and the world's most intense lead author [General McChrystal]) who put up with my
smart-assery -- often in enclosed spaces -- for a whole month.‖
Exum was ―… was tremendously impressed by the quality of the men and women working for
General McChrystal at ISAF. … General McChrystal has assembled a team of smart officers
and advisers who understand the challenges of Afghanistan and are willing to speak unpleasant
truths. Many of these officers are indeed men who served with McChrystal in either the Ranger
Regiment or the Joint Special Operations Command… My experience in Afghanistan was made
great by the incredible team with whom I worked …‖
On the Charlie Rose Show Exum said, ―… I think it was a bit disheartening the way he [Gen.
McKernain] was dismissed (as big a fan I am of General McChrystal) ….‖ But, Josh Foust
observed, ―Back in May, when McChrystal‘s nomination was first announced and McKiernan
was summarily dismissed, Ex was singing a different tune … What changed, I wonder?‖
Jari (stupidest.wordpress.com) observed that ―… since returning from his latest civilian sojourn,
the normally witty and sarcastic Abu Muqawama has turned into a walking billboard for Gen.
McChrystal and his new command ... Phew, talk about a man crush.‖
On September 21, 2009, Gen. McChrystal‘s classified assessment of the Afghan war was
leaked to Bob Woodward at the Washington Post. Andrew Exum wrote that it was ―…
written with about a dozen talented and good-natured co-authors … I look forward to both
your judgment of our efforts and the effect it has on the policy debate in Washington and the
allied capitals.‖
The leak of McChrystal‘s secret assessment created friction between the military leadership and
the Obama administration which felt ―boxed in.‖ It appears someone in the military leaked the
assessment to put pressure on President Obama to OK the Afghan ―surge‖ of troops.
81
Has Anyone Been Unlucky Enough to Have Participated in All Five?

Oh for goodness' sake:

WASHINGTON — Secretary of Defense Robert Gates has given the new U.S.
commander in Afghanistan 60 days to conduct another review of the American
strategy there, the fifth since President Barack Obama took office less than five
months ago.
I suppose this was inevitable. General McChrystal and his team are going to have to get
their own eyes on this problem set. I just hope they build their work upon the four
reviews which have preceded this one.
...
The 50 Most Powerful People In DC

GQ – November 2009 [from interview with Nate Fick]:
How does an organization like yours react to the increasingly violent situation in Afghanistan?
―We've sent one of our fellows, Andrew Exum, to serve on General McChrystal's
assessment team, and we meet with General McChrystal via videoconference once a
week to talk about strategy there.‖
Hiatus
June 23, 2009 | Posted by Abu Muqawama - 11:51am
I will be out of the country and unable to blog for the next month. Expect guest bloggers --
hand-selected for their skills in sarcasm (and nunchuks, naturally) -- presently.
...
Back from Afghanistan

July 22, 2009 | Posted by Abu Muqawama - 3:13pm | 63 Comments
Greetings, readers. I apologize for being out of the loop for these past four weeks. About five
weeks ago, I was asked by General McChrystal to be part of a small team of scholars and
practitioners helping to conduct his 60-day review of strategy and operations in Afghanistan. So
82
I have spent the past month traveling around Afghanistan conducting interviews and trying to
evaluate ISAF's operations.
… I was tremendously impressed by the quality of the men and women working for General
McChrystal at ISAF. There is a joke going around that when Petraeus took charge in Iraq, he
gathered the smartest people he could find to help him win. When McChrystal took charge in
Afghanistan, meanwhile, he gathered ... well, a bunch of guys from the 75th Ranger Regiment.
The truth is, General McChrystal has assembled a team of smart officers and advisers who
understand the challenges of Afghanistan and are willing to speak unpleasant truths. Many of
these officers are indeed men who served with McChrystal in either the Ranger Regiment or the
Joint Special Operations Command… My experience in Afghanistan was made great by the
incredible team with whom I worked …
Breaking: Abu Muqawama Goes All Mushy on McChrystal

Jari, “The Stupidest Man on Earth” blog -- July 24, 2009
Funny how Afghanistan affects people. Josh Foust came back pessimistic as ever. For the
inimitable Andrew Exum, however, the place apparently was an eye-opener of a different sort.
Exum fought in Afghanistan in 2002, but since returning from his latest civilian sojourn, the
normally witty and sarcastic Abu Muqawama has turned into a walking billboard for Gen.
McChrystal and his new command. … And of McChrystal‘s counterinsurgency skills he has this
to say , ―… I watched McChrystal stand up and spell out for his staff in explicit terms exactly
why killing civilians makes one operationally ineffective in an environment like Afghanistan.
… But when he tells you that it‘s impossible to kill your way out of this war, you believe him —
because Lord knows, he‘s tried.‖ …. Phew, talk about a man crush.
The Strange Contradictions of Andrew Exum’s Afghanistan Trip

Joshua Foust, Registan – July 29, 2009
So, Andrew ―Abu Muqawama‖ Exum is doing the interview circuit about his experience as a
part of General McChrystal‘s 60-Day re-review of the Afghan War. … To kick things off, we
have Exum‘s appearance on the Charlie Rose Show,
83
―We haven‘t had leadership in Afghanistan that‘s really been able to take control of this
situation. That‘s not an indictment of General McKiernan, who by all accounts was a
highly competent commander, and, just personally, speaking as a former Army officer, I
think it was a bit disheartening the way he was dismissed (as big a fan I am of General
McChrystal) ….‖
Back in May, when McChrystal‘s nomination was first announced and McKiernan was
summarily dismissed, Ex was singing a different tune …
“President Obama, Secretary Gates, and Gen. Petraeus are as serious as a heart attack …
This was ruthless, and they were not about to do the George Casey thing whereby a
commander is left in the theater long after he is considered to have grown ineffective…
The sad truth of the matter is that people have been calling for McKiernan‘s head for
some time now. Many of the people with whom I have spoken do not think that
McKiernan ―gets‖ the war in Afghanistan — or counterinsurgency warfare in general.
There was very little confidence that — with McKiernan in charge in Afghanistan — we
the United States had the varsity squad on the field.‖
What changed, I wonder? …
...
How I Spent My Summer

September 21, 2009 | Posted by Abu Muqawama - 3:24am
…pages 2-1 (9) to 2-22 (30) of this .pdf. [8-30-09 ―Commander‘s Assessment‖ by General
McChrystal] This was written with about a dozen talented and good-natured co-authors (and
the world's most intense lead author [General McChrystal]) who put up with my smart-assery
-- often in enclosed spaces -- for a whole month. I look forward to both your judgment of our
efforts and the effect it has on the policy debate in Washington and the allied capitals.
Note: This secret assessment was given to Bob Woodward, creating friction between the
military and the Obama administration which felt ―boxed in‖ by this leak.
84
“BLAME TO SHARE ON A BOOK REVIEW”
On September 13, 2009, Andrew Exum‘s book review of ―Where Men Win Glory – The
Odyssey of Pat Tillman,‖ appeared in the Washington Post. Exum portrayed Krakauer as a
onspiracy theorist with a ―visceral hatred of the Bush administration‖ who lacked the experience
or knowledge to criticize the decisions of Army officers. He brushed aside the abundance of
damning evidence Krakauer presented about the Army's cover-up of Pat Tillman‘s friendly-fire
death. Instead of addressing the evidence, he excused the actions of his fellow Ranger officers as
―a series of blunders‖ (never even mentioning Gen. Stanley McChrystal despite his hands-on role
directing the cover-up).
Exum did mention he was a ―civilian advisor‖ in Afghanistan during 2009. However, Exum
failed to disclose to his readers he had been an advisor to Gen. McChrystal, mention his close
personal admiration for Gen. Chrystal, or mention his employer CNAS‘s close professional ties;
CEO Nate Fick said, ―[CNAS] meet[s] with General McChrystal … once a week to talk about
strategy there.‖
Andrew Exum‘s book review ―appears to be a calculated effort on Exum's part to undermine
Krakauer's credibility and undermine his valid criticisms of McChrystal [and the Ranger RGT
officers]. Exum wasn't merely "an unpaid adviser to McChrystal" -- Exum was one of
McChrystal's biggest cheerleaders.‖
...
“Soldiers are Either Victims … or War Criminals”
Instead of addressing Krakauer‘s evidence that pointed to a conspiracy by the Army to cover-up
the Pat Tillman fratricide (and McChrystal's central role in the cover-up), Andrew Exum asserted
that Krakauer, since he is not a combat veteran, cannot have the perspective to make any valid
commentary on the actions of men in combat and that ―in the eyes of Krakauer … soldiers are
either victims of circumstance or war criminals in waiting.‖:
―Krakauer does not appear to understand light infantry combat as well as he does
―Whenever one seeks to understand an epic failure of our nation's military, one must first
draw a line on a sheet of paper and write "conspiracy" at one end and "buffoonery" on the
other. Those who have spent time in the military and have seen it struggle not just with
85
war but with everyday barracks life tend to err on the side of incompetence, while those
who never have -- such as Krakauer -- tend to suspect conspiracy.‖
Apparently, Andrew Exum was unaware that Jon Krakauer spent seven months embedded in
more time than Exum during his tours with the Tenth and his Ranger Battalion in 2002 and
2004? Surely Krakauer‘s experience would give him some standing?
Exum‘s bashing Krakauer for his lack of respect for the military is an absurd personal attack:
Krakauer donated proceeds from his book tour to veteran organizations and dedicated his book to
a soldier he spent time with in Afghanistan, SFC Jared Monti who died winning the Medal of
Honor.
“Gross Error of Judgement or a Conspiracy”
In his book review, Andrew Exum ignored the abundance of damning evidence Krakauer
presented in his book about the Army's cover-up of the Tillman fratricide. Instead, Exum tried to
portray Krakauer as a nut-job conspiracy theorist:
―By now, the story of Pat Tillman is widely known … and how the cause of his death --
friendly fire -- was kept from his family and the public for weeks in what, depending on
your point of view, was either a gross error of judgment or a conspiracy engineered by
the U.S. military and the Bush administration. … ―
However, the opening lines of Exum‘s book review actually provide eyewitness testimony to
support just such a ―conspiracy‖ theory! Exum began with his personal account of the night Pat
Tillman was killed:
asked my squad leaders to gather our men while I awaited orders. My platoon was
dropped onto a 12,000-foot mountain at night to reinforce the small reconnaissance team
that had been battling men they believed to be al-Qaeda fighters, killing two combatants.
On the way south from Bagram, I listened on the radio to the U.S. casualty report from
the other firefight: One killed in action, two wounded. After a truly miserable night spent
86
at high altitude near the Pakistan border, I arrived back in Bagram to learn the name of
that Ranger killed in action: Spec. Patrick Daniel Tillman.‖
The forward observer assigned to Serial One, Specialist Donald Lee … heard an airplane
Rangers also said they heard the drone. … headquarters later confirmed that a Predator
was overhead during the firefight, and a civilian contractor at Bagram said he
just happened to ―disappear,‖ just like all copies of the CPT Scott‘s first 15-6 report just
happened to vanish! It must have just been another one of the Army‘s ―blunders.‖
“Boots on the Ground By Dusk”
Andrew Exum ridiculed Krakauer‘s assertion that the order to get ―boots on the ground by dusk‖
was driven by ―Rumsfeld‘s insistence on strict timelines.‖
"Incredibly, [Krakauer] tries to claim that [the cascade of blunders that culminated in
Tillman's death] was driven not by poor and independent decision-making by field-grade
officers but rather by Donald Rumsfeld's insistence on strict timelines. '[The] sense of
urgency attached to the mission,' Krakauer writes, 'came from little more than a
bureaucratic fixation on meeting arbitrary deadlines so missions could be checked off a
list and tallied as 'accomplished.' Ranger units are not ordered to meet deadlines
arbitrarily. They meet deadlines because the missions they execute--like airfield seizures
or hostage rescues--are extraordinarily complex operations."
Krakauer actually wrote in the passage excerpted above:
―After making his case that the mission could be accomplished just as effectively and just
as quickly without splitting the platoon, Uthlaut was baffled by headquarters‘ stubborn
87
insistence on dividing it. He [Lt Uthlaut] asked Dennis [EO Alpha CO], ―So the only
reason that you want me to split my platoon is to have boots on the ground in the sector
before dark?‖ ‗Yes‘, Dennis replied. …‖
"During an investigation of Tillman‘s death seven months later, Brigadier General Gary
Jones asked Alpha Company first sergeant Thomas Fuller, 'I mean, what necessitated in
this mission right here that they had to get down there so quickly?' ―I don‘t think there
was anything,‖ Fuller testified under oath. ―I think that a lot of times at higher
[headquarters] – maybe even, you know, higher than battalion [headquarters] – they may
make a timeline, and then we just feel like we have to stick to that timeline. There‘s no –
there‘s no ‗intel‘ driving it. There‘s no – you know, there‘s no events driving it. It‘s just
a timeline, and we fell like we have to stick with it; and that‘s what drives that kind of
stuff.‖
―In other words, the sense of urgency attached to the mission came from little more than
a bureaucratic fixation on meeting arbitrary deadlines so missions could be checked off a
list and tallied as 'accomplished.' This emphasis on quantification has always been a
hallmark of the military, but it was carried to new heights of fatuity during Donald
Rumsfeld‘s tenure at the Pentagon."
“I Am Hardly Objective Here”
Andrew Exum disclosed one of his conflicts of interest,that he had served as a Ranger officer
with the Ranger RGT officers criticized by Krakauer for their role in the cover-up:
―… As a former officer in the 75th Ranger Regiment -- an elite unit whose leadership
Krakauer skewers – …‘
And, as Andrew Exum wrote in his June 2, 2009 blog post, ―Confirm Him‖:
Rangers, at the time, so I am hardly objective here), …‖
Exactly! So why the hell is he writing a review of a book that criticizes his Ranger RGT, his
fellow Ranger officers and Gen. McChrystal?
―… there is plenty of documentary evidence suggesting that experienced military officers

did, in fact, make a series of blunders in the aftermath of Tillman's death. As a former
officer in the 75th Ranger Regiment -- an elite unit whose leadership Krakauer skewers –
88
I might be expected to rise to the defense of the officers who made the decision to initially
withhold the details of Tillman's death from his family and the public.‖
Yet, Exum brushed aside the abundance of damning evidence Krakauer of the Army's cover-up
of Pat Tillman‘s friendly-fire death. Instead of actually addressing the evidence, Exum defended
his fellow Ranger officers by excusing their actions to cover-up Tillman‘s friendly-fire death as
merely ―a series of blunders‖ and ―a series of disastrous and incomprehensibly stupid decisions‖.
“McChrystal Stands Out as … Probably the Least Culpable Guy”
Andrew Exum never even mentioned Gen. Stanley McChrystal in his book review, although
McChrystal had played a central role in the cover-up of Pat Tillman‘s friendly-fire death.
Prior to McChrystal‘s June 2nd 2009 Senate confirmation hearing, Exum wrote ―Confirm Him‖
voicing his support for McChrystal‘s confirmation and dismissing the Tillman family‘s ―personal
grief‖:
―…McChrystal was by all accounts not one of the officers in the chain of command who
made really egregious errors or misjudgments -- he even warned off his high command
from turning Ranger Tillman into some great hero before all the facts were in. …‖
grief should not be a veto on the nomination … These are serious questions and are more
important than either the death of Pat Tillman or the alleged abuse of detainees.‖
However, the evidence is overwhelming that McChrystal played a key role in the cover-up of
Tillman‘s fratricide. And it appears that McChrystal personally supervised the writing of the
false Silver Star citation and altered the witness statements that turned Tillman into a ―great
hero.‖
Note: for details on Gen. McChrystals role, see ―The [Untold] Tillman Story‖
89
“Blame to Spare on a Book Review”
On November 15th 2009, the Washington Post published a brief correction alluding to Exum‘s
conflict of interest with Gen. McChrystal. The Washington Post‘s Ombudsman Andrew
Alexander wrote in his column ―Blame to Spare on a Book Review‖ :

wrote a "willfully deceptive" review that protected him. … But Exum said his role with
McChrystal was so obvious that he assumed Post book editors were aware of it. … "It
was all over the news that I had been in Afghanistan" advising McChrystal, he said.
… I also think Exum deserves blame. The contract language is explicit. Despite media
coverage of his role in Afghanistan, the contract puts the onus on the reviewer to notify
The Post if there is an "appearance of a conflict of interest."
But, Exum had more than merely the ―appearance of a conflict of interest‖ when it comes to
General McChrystal. Exum failed to disclose his close personal and professional ties with Gen.
McChrystal.
Exum is a fellow at CNAS, the ―go to‖ Washington think-tank, which advocated for the Afghan
―surge‖. CNAS had close ties with both Gen. Petreaus and Gen. McChrystal; CEO Nate Fick
said in Nov. 2009, ―[CNAS] meet[s] with General McChrystal … once a week to talk about
strategy there.‖
As a ―civilian advisor‖ in June 2009, Exum worked closely with General McChrystal as a
member of his 60-day Afghan war assessment team. In a blog post, Exum wrote, ―[General
McChrystal])… put up with my smart-assery -- often in enclosed spaces -- for a whole month‘.‖
Andrew Exum is a self-professed ―fan‖ of McChrystal who has lavished praise on General
McChrystal, ―… you really need a silver bullet …You have one chance to get this right, and
starter in anyone's line-up‖ and has described McChrystal as "one of the finest men I have ever
known, and I hope I have sons who serve under men like him."
―Sfoda‖ wrote, ―Exum's failure to disclose that he is in thrall to General McChrystal is a very
serious breach of journalistic ethics, not so much because it may have hurt Krakauer's book sales,
but because it appears to be a calculated effort on Exum's part to undermine Krakauer's
credibility. Exum wasn't merely "an unpaid adviser to McChrystal"-- Exum was, and remains,
one of McChrystal's biggest cheerleaders.‖
90
Excerpted from He Didn't Come Home

Andrew Exum, Washington Post -- September 13, 2009
Book Review of WHERE MEN WIN GLORY -- The Odyssey of Pat Tillman By Jon Krakauer
On April 22, 2004, I was standing in an operations center in Bagram, Afghanistan, watching two
firefights on the monitors and screens in front of me. A platoon of U.S. Army Rangers and a
special operations reconnaissance force were both under fire and in possible need of assistance.
As the leader of a 40-man quick-reaction force of Rangers, I asked my squad leaders to gather
our men while I awaited orders.
My platoon was dropped onto a 12,000-foot mountain at night to reinforce the small
reconnaissance team that had been battling men they believed to be al-Qaeda fighters, killing two
combatants. On the way south from Bagram, I listened on the radio to the U.S. casualty report
from the other firefight: One killed in action, two wounded. After a truly miserable night spent
at high altitude near the Pakistan border, I arrived back in Bagram to learn the name of that
Ranger killed in action: Spec. Patrick Daniel Tillman.
By now, the story of Pat Tillman is widely known … how the cause of his death -- friendly fire --
was kept from his family and the public for weeks in what, depending on your point of view, was
either a gross error of judgment or a conspiracy engineered by the U.S. military and the Bush
administration.
… If Krakauer had committed himself to telling Tillman's story, "Where Men Win Glory" might
have been the latest in an unbroken string of superb books. But his book falls flat -- not least
because he is more eager to launch an inquisition into the crimes of the Bush administration than
to explore this single extraordinary life.
… In describing the battlefield actions, Krakauer does not appear to understand light infantry
combat as well as he does mountaineering. He comprehends enough to know that the Ranger
officers in Bagram probably made a mistake in overruling a decision by the platoon leader on the
ground in Khost province. But incredibly, he tries to claim that this situation was driven not by
poor and independent decision-making by field-grade officers but rather by Donald Rumsfeld's
insistence on strict timelines. "[The] sense of urgency attached to the mission," Krakauer writes,
"came from little more than a bureaucratic fixation on meeting arbitrary deadlines so missions
could be checked off a list and tallied as 'accomplished.' This emphasis on quantification . . .
was carried to new heights of fatuity during Donald Rumsfeld's tenure at the Pentagon."
While I'm willing to accept, say, Krakauer's criticism of the fateful decisions made by
mountaineer Anatoli Boukreev on Everest in 1996, there is nothing in Krakauer's life or
experience that inspires similar confidence in his criticism of experienced combat officers
91
specially selected for service in an elite special operations unit. Similarly, Ranger units are not
ordered to meet deadlines arbitrarily. They meet deadlines because the missions they execute --
like airfield seizures or hostage rescues -- are extraordinarily complex operations that demand
that men and their units go places and do things in concert with one another under high levels of
stress and confusion.
That said, there is plenty of documentary evidence suggesting that experienced military officers
did, in fact, make a series of blunders in the aftermath of Tillman's death. As a former officer in
the 75th Ranger Regiment -- an elite unit whose leadership Krakauer skewers -- I might be
expected to rise to the defense of the officers who made the decision to initially withhold the
details of Tillman's death from his family and the public. But given the available evidence in
both Krakauer's account and in numerous investigations, it appears that the otherwise competent
commanders of the 75th Ranger Regiment and 2nd Ranger Battalion did indeed make a series of
disastrous and incomprehensibly stupid decisions.
… An Air Force officer I know likes to say that whenever one seeks to understand an epic failure
of our nation's military, one must first draw a line on a sheet of paper and write "conspiracy" at
one end and "buffoonery" on the other. Those who have spent time in the military and have seen
it struggle not just with war but with everyday barracks life tend to err on the side of
incompetence, while those who never have -- such as Krakauer -- tend to suspect conspiracy.
Andrew Exum is a fellow at the Center for a New American Security and served in Afghanistan
as an Army officer in 2002 and 2004 and as a civilian adviser in 2009.
92
Blame to Share on a Book Review

WP Ombudsman Andrew Alexander, Washington Post – November 15, 2009
A review in a major publication such as The Post can influence whether a new book sinks or
soars. So when Post book editors assign a review, they look for writers who are knowledgeable
and unbiased. That impartiality is so important that The Post's contract with reviewers requires
them to disclose even the "possibility" of "an appearance of a conflict of interest." But the no-
conflict clause was violated recently, prompting a well-established author to charge that
partiality led to a negative review of his highly anticipated book.
Jon Krakauer's "Where Men Win Glory: The Odyssey of Pat Tillman" … focuses heavily on the
military's original concealment that Tillman had been killed by friendly fire and suggests that
Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, now the top U.S. and NATO commander in Afghanistan, was part
of a cover-up.
To review the book, The Post chose Andrew M. Exum, a fellow with the Center for a New
American Security. He was familiar with Afghanistan, having twice served there as an Army
officer. His review appeared in the Sept. 13 Outlook section, about a month after he got the
assignment. It said Krakauer's book "falls flat." While not addressing McChrystal's role, Exum
concluded that "otherwise competent commanders" had made a "series of disastrous and
incomprehensibly stupid decisions" in failing to promptly reveal the true cause of Tillman's
death.
What was not disclosed in the review was that Exum has a close relationship with McChrystal,
whom he recently described in his blog as "one of the finest men I have ever known." In June
and July, he served as an unpaid civilian adviser to McChrystal in Afghanistan. While the Post
review noted that Exum had been a "civilian adviser" there this year, it didn't say he was advising
the general.
Krakauer is angry. He told me that because Exum is "enthralled" with McChrystal, he wrote a
"willfully deceptive" review that protected him.
Krakauer raised the issue with Book World editor Rachel Hartigan Shea, who investigated. Last
Monday she e-mailed Krakauer that Exum had acknowledged serving as "an unpaid adviser to
McChrystal over the summer. He should have disclosed this to us at the outset." In a correction
published Wednesday, The Post said the review should have mentioned the connection.
But Exum said his role with McChrystal was so obvious that he assumed Post book editors were
aware of it. He cited a July 31 Post front-page story in which he was identified as a member of
the "assessment team" making military strategy recommendations to McChrystal. And in the
93
weeks immediately before receiving the Post assignment, his advisory role had been noted in
numerous mainstream media stories or broadcast interviews. Indeed, he said he believed the
heavy media exposure was precisely why The Post asked him to review the book. "It was all
over the news that I had been in Afghanistan" advising McChrystal, he said.
Shea said she is somewhat sympathetic to Exum's explanation. But she said she told Exum that
Post book editors assign reviews across a "broad range of subjects" and that they can't monitor
the "ins and outs of every field." …
Krakauer doesn't blame The Post's book editors. They're stretched and can't be experts in all
subjects. But I think they bear some responsibility. A routine database search before offering
Exum the assignment would have revealed his advisory role, which might have prompted
questions about his neutrality.
But I also think Exum deserves blame. The contract language is explicit. Despite media coverage
of his role in Afghanistan, the contract puts the onus on the reviewer to notify The Post if there is
an "appearance of a conflict of interest." …That's important. To be credible, Post book reviews
need to be untainted.
...
11/14/2009 3:36:54 PM sfoda wrote:
Exum's failure to disclose that he is in thrall to General McChrystal is a very serious breach of
journalistic ethics, not so much because it may have hurt Krakauer's book sales, but because it
appears to be a calculated effort on Exum's part to undermine Krakauer's credibility and subvert
his valid criticisms of a military leader who is the leading advocate for escalating the war in
Afghanistan.
Exum wasn't merely "an unpaid adviser to McChrystal"-- Exum was, and remains, one of
McChrystal's biggest cheerleaders. On Exum's blog he boasts that last summer (immediately
before he wrote his review of Krakauer's book) McChrystal "put up with my smart-assery--often
in enclosed spaces--for a whole month." In another blog post Exum crowed, "Stan McChrystal is
one of the finest men I have ever known, and I hope I have sons who serve under men like him."
In his review of "Where Men Win Glory," Exum ignored the abundance of damning evidence
Krakauer presented about the Army's cover-up of the Tillman fratricide (and McChrystal's
leading role in the cover-up). Instead Exum tried to portray Krakauer as a nut-job conspiracy
theorist. For example, Exum's review states, "Incredibly, [Krakauer] tries to claim that [the
cascade of blunders that culminated in Tillman's death] was driven not by poor and independent
94
decision-making by field-grade officers but rather by Donald Rumsfeld's insistence on strict

timelines. '[The] sense of urgency attached to the mission,' Krakauer writes, 'came from little
more than a bureaucratic fixation on meeting arbitrary deadlines so missions could be checked
off a list and tallied as 'accomplished.' Ranger units are not ordered to meet deadlines arbitrarily.
They meet deadlines because the missions they execute--like airfield seizures or hostage rescues-
-are extraordinarily complex operations."
Krakauer actually wrote in the passage excerpted above: "During an investigation of Tillman‘s
death seven months later, Brigadier General Gary Jones asked Alpha Company first sergeant
Thomas Fuller, 'I mean, what necessitated in this mission right here that they had to get down
there so quickly?'
'I don‘t think there was anything,' Fuller testified under oath. 'I think that a lot of times at higher
[headquarters]—-maybe even, you know, higher than battalion [headquarters]—-they may make
a timeline, and then we just feel like we have to stick to that timeline. There‘s no—-there‘s no
intel driving it. There‘s no—-you know, there‘s no events driving it. It‘s just a timeline, and we
feel like we have to stick with it; and that‘s what drives that kind of stuff.' In other words, the
sense of urgency attached to the mission came from little more than a bureaucratic fixation on
meeting arbitrary deadlines so missions could be checked off a list and tallied as 'accomplished.'
This emphasis on quantification has always been a hallmark of the military, but it was carried to
new heights of fatuity during Donald Rumsfeld‘s tenure at the Pentagon."
There isn't space here to catalog all the ways in which Exum's review is intentionally misleading.
To understand why Exum slammed this book, I would urge everyone to read an Op-Ed Krakauer
wrote in The Daily Beast last month, titled "Gen. McChrystal's Credibility Problem".
11/15/2009 2:06:15 PM Itzajob wrote:
Why doesn't the Post simply have the book re-reviewed? It would seem the fair thing to do, and
given the controversy, people would surely be interested in reading a new article, so scarce
budgetary resources would not have been wasted.
95
“WHERE MEN WIN GLORY”

The Odyssey of Pat Tillman
Jon Krakauer
(2009 Hardcover)
Note: This is not an exhaustive set of notes from the book. I‘ve only provided citations that are
referenced in ―He Who Shall Not be Fact-Checked.‖
349 Passages throughout the book that refer to the ongoing American military campaign in
Afghanistan … were informed in large part by research I undertook on the ground in
Afghanistan in May and June 2006, and from December 2006 through February 2007. I spent
most of that time in remote parts of Knoar, Khost, paktika, and Pakitia provinces, where I
accompanied troops from the U.S. Army‘s Tenth Mountain Division, Eighty-second Airborne
Division, and Special Forces Operational Detachment – Alpha 773 … on numerous combat
missions along the Pakistan border.
...
261 The forward observer assigned to Serial One, Specialist Donald Lee … heard an airplane
Rangers also said they heard the drone. … Predator drones are equipped with hi-tech cameras
that function in daylight or darkness … headquarters later confirmed that a Predator was
overhead during the firefight, and a civilian contractor at Bagram said he remembered seeing the
Predator‘s video feed. During the numerous investigations that would be undertaken over the
next three years, the Army and the CIA nevertheless asserted that no such video existed.
...
245 After making his case that the mission could be accomplished just as effectively and just
as quickly without splitting the platoon, Uthlaut was baffled by headquarters‘ stubborn insistence
on dividing it. He [Lt Uthlaut] asked Dennis [EO Alpha CO], ―So the only reason that you want
me to split my platoon is to have boots on the ground in the sector before dark?‖ ―Yes, ― Dennis
replied.
245 BG Gary Jones asked Alpha Company First Sergeant Thomas Fuller, ―I mean, what
necessitated in this mission right here that they had to get down there so quickly?‖
―I don‘t think there was anything,‖ Fuller testified under oath. ―I think that a lot of times at
higher [headquarters] – maybe even, you know, higher than battalion [headquarters] – they may
make a timeline, and then we just feel like we have to stick to that timeline. There‘s no – there‘s
96
no ‗intel‘ driving it. There‘s no – you know, there‘s no events driving it. It‘s just a timeline, and
we fell like we have to stick with it; and that‘s what drives that kind of stuff.‖
In other words, the sense of urgency attached to the mission came from little more than a
bureaucratic fixation on meeting arbitrary deadlines so missions could be checked off a list and
tallied as ―accomplished.‖ This emphasis on quantification has always been a hallmark of the
military, but it was carried to new heights of fatuity during Donald Rumsfeld‘s tenure at the
Pentagon. Rumsfeld was obsessed with achieving positive ―metrics‖ that could be wielded to
demonstrate progress in the Global War on Terror, or the illusion thereof.
...
321 On July 31, 2007, Secretary of the Army Pete Geren held a press conference at the
Pentagon … Brushing aside overwhelming evidence to the contrary, Geren simply asserted that
there was no cover-up. Although he admitted that there were ―errors and failures of leadership,‖
he insisted there was ―no intent to deceive‖ by anyone in the Army. … ―… There was no cover-
up. There was misinformed action on the part of multiple soldiers, and you had a perfect storm
of mistakes by many soldiers.‖
...
328 ―From the moment you first join the Ranger Battalion, it‘s ingrained in you that you will
always do the right thing. … Then you see something like what they‘re doing to Pat – what
officers in the Ranger Regiment are doing – and you stop being so naïve. The only two times
where I personally was in a position to see where the Army had the choice to do the right thing
or the wrong thing, both times they chose to do the wrong thing. One of those times was what
they did to Pat. It made me realize that the Army does what suits the Army. That‘s why I won‘t
put that uniform back on. I‘m done.‖ -- SGT Mel Ward
97

Crappy New Book"
On October 15, 2009 Jon Krakauer published "Gen. McChrystal's Credibility Problem"
describing Gen. McChrystal‘s hand-on role in supervising the cover-up of Pat Tillman‘s
friendly-fire death and the writing of a fraudulent Silver Star award:
―LTC Bailey said, ‗There was no doubt about it. It was a case where there were six or seven
Rangers that saw the vehicle shooting at them. [He called the Ranger RGT commander COL
Nixon] … Before the day was out, Nixon notified three of his superiors, including McChrystal,
that Tillman‘s death was a fratricide. … Army officers embarked on an elaborate campaign to
suppress the truth …McChrystal was put in charge of writing and expediting the medal
recommendation … McChrystal insisted … although he closely supervised the drafting of these
documents, he simply failed to notice that all of them had been painstakingly written to omit any
reference to friendly fire. … two soldiers … later testified that both [their Silver Star witness]
statements had been fabricated, apparently by one or more members of the Silver Star
recommendation team [Nixon, Kauzlarich, and/or McChrystal].‖
...
On November 1st 2009, on Meet the Press, Jon Krakauer accused General McChrystal of lying
about his role in the Tillman cover-up:
GREGORY: Even those who were critical of him and the Army say they don't think he willfully
deceived anyone.
MR. KRAKAUER: That's correct. He, he just said now he didn't read this hugely important
document about the most famous soldier in the military. He didn't read it carefully enough to
notice that it talked about enemy fire instead of friendly fire? That's preposterous. That, that's
not believable.
...
The following day, in response to Krakauer‘s Meet the Press appearance, Andrew Exum posted
―On Martial Virtue … and Selling Jon Krakauer‘s Crappy New Book‖:
98
―A few months ago, I was asked to review Jon Krakauer's new book by the Washington Post ...
the book was awful. I mean, it was really bad. ... Krakauer wrote a crappy book, and now he has
to market it. And how is he doing that?‖
―By going after Stan McChrystal, who is probably the least culpable guy in Tillman's chain of
command ... There Krakauer was, on Meet the Press yesterday, going after McChrystal, who he
never interviewed for his book who sent a memorandum up through the chain of command at the
time of Tillman‟s death warning his commanders … Stan McChrystal stands out as one of the
guys who made mistakes but ultimately did the right thing. ...‖
―But in the eyes of Krakauer and on the fringes of the American left, soldiers are either victims
of circumstance or war criminals in waiting. … Stan McChrystal is one of the finest men I have
ever known, and I hope I have sons who serve under men like him. Jon Krakauer is going after
him now because he has written a crappy book and now has to sell it. ―
...
Aside: My comments on this post which I haven‘t addressed previously:
1.) “There Krakauer was, on Meet the Press yesterday, going after McChrystal, who he never
interviewed for his book…”
Krakauer never interviewed McChrystal because all of the Army officers involved have refused
interviews (with the exception of Gen. Kensinger). Even with the NYT journalists who wrote
hero-worshipping iconographies, McChrystal refused to talk with them about the Tillman case.
To my knowledge, McChrystal‘s only public (and disingenuous) comments were during his June
2, 2009 Senate confirmation hearing.
2.) “[McChrystal] who had sent a memorandum [P4] up through the chain of command at the
time of Tillman's death warning his commanders about the circumstances surrounding the
event.”
No, McChrystal sent the P4 memo a week after Tillman‘s death, even though the 15-6
investigating officer CPT Scott passed verbal confirmation of friendly-fire up the chain to
McChrystal the day after the death. Some timely ―warning‖!
3.) “I at least had no idea Tillman was killed by friendly fire. I would not learn that fact until I
had returned to the United States a week later”
99
So, let me get this right. Exum learned about Tillman‘s friendly-fire just a week after he
returned to the US. But, supposedly Tillman’s friendly-fire death was a ―closely held‖ secret by
the Ranger RGT Commanders. Yet, even Andrew Exum (a lowly LT across the ocean back in
the US) knew about it, but not Secretary Rumsfeld, Gen. Abizaid, or President Bush, etc? The
Tillman family wasn‘t told for five weeks, including Kevin Tillman who was a Ranger who had
returned home with his brother‘s body.
...
In response to Andrew Exum‘s ―On Martial Virtue…‖ blog post, I wrote a lengthy comment
―fisking‖* his whitewash of Gen. McChrystal (abridged version below):
Well, as one blogger wrote, ―Phew, talk about a man crush. … the normally witty and sarcastic
Abu Muqawama has turned into a walking billboard for Gen. McChrystal‖ …‖) Andrew Exum is
a self-professed ―fan‖ of McChrystal, who has lavished praise on General McChrystal: ―… you
really need a silver bullet …You have one chance to get this right, and you'd better get your A-
team on the field." … ―I do know that Stan McChrystal is an automatic starter in anyone's line-
up‖.
In his book review, Andrew Exum neglected to mention General McChrystal‘s central role in the
Tillman case or disclose his close personal and professional ties with him. This past summer,
Exum spent a month working closely with McChrystal in Afghanistan after being asked by
McChrystal to join his Afghan war assessment team: ‗This [Afghan War Assessment] was
written with about a dozen talented and good-natured co-authors (and the world's most intense
lead author [General McChrystal]) who put up with my smart-assery -- often in enclosed spaces -
- for a whole month‘.‖
Before reading this blog entry, I had assumed that Andrew Exum and CNAS were part of the bi-
partisan ―conspiracy‖ protecting General McChrystal, and that Exum had written his book
review to whitewash General McChrystal‘s central role in orchestrating the cover-up of Pat
Tillman‘s fratricide.
However, after reading this blog entry, I believe Andrew Exum is either awfully good at feigning
self-righteous outrage or he is woefully ignorant of the most basic facts of the Tillman case.
(And he thinks Krakauer‘s hard on McChrystal? He ought to read Mary Tillman‘s book ―Boots
on the Ground by Dusk‖ which eviscerated McChrystal!)
Unlike Exum, I know what I‘m talking about. I‘ve followed the Tillman case the past four years
and have closely examined the reports from the various Army, IG and Congressional
―investigations.‖
100
Far from ―the least culpable guy‖ who ―ultimately did the right thing‖ McChrystal was probably
the most culpable guy in the Tillman case: McChrystal received confirmation of Tillman‘s
fratricide within two days, had the responsibility to tell the family, made the decision not to tell
the family about fratricide, and he supervised the writing of the ―misleading‖ Silver Star award,
and then sent his ―timely‖ prevaricating P4 memo a week after the 15-6 investigating officer
passed verbal confirmation of friendly-fire up the chain of command to McChrystal.
Here‘s my take from McChrystal‘s June 2, 2009 Senate confirmation hearing (excerpted
from my 200 page binder, ―Did They Teach You How to Lie Yet?‖ Senator James Webb,
General Stanley McChrystal and the Betrayal of Pat Tillman):
Note: In the original comment I placed here ―My Response to Gen. McChrystal‘s Testimony‖.
See ―Senate Armed Service‘s Committee‘s June 2nd Confirmation Hearing‖ in the post ―Did
They Teach You How to Lie Yet?‖]
You can find more at ―Senate Confirmation Hearing for Gen. McChrystal‘s Promotion (June
2009)‖ in ―The [Untold] Tillman Story‖.]
Andrew Exum criticized Krakauer‘s ―visceral hatred of the Bush administration‖ and for his
being ―eager to launch an inquisition into the crimes of the Bush Administration…‖ Here, I agree
with Exum that Krakauer focused too much on the sins of the Bush Adminstration.
Krakauer‘s story blaming Bush and the Army for the cover-up, with the Democratic Congress as
the champions in pursuit of the truth is too simple. In reality, the cover-up has been a thoroughly
bipartisan affair, with Congress and the Obama Presidency continuing to protect General
McChrystal from punishment. And the New York Time‘s and their Pentagon Reporter Thom
Shanker played a role as well.
Congressman Waxman‘s so-called investigation (like the IG report) was not an honest
attempt to get at the truth. I believe that sometime after the April 2007 hearing, Waxman
got the word the ―fix‖ was in, to lay off McChrystal. (Perhaps because of McChrystal‘s
important covert contribution to the ―surge‖ in Iraq?) Waxman dropped him from the list
of witnesses for the August 1, 2007 hearing and the testimony during that hearing was a
praise-fest for McChrystal. Despite the concerns raised by the Committee during the
April 2007 hearing about the falsified Silver Star, P4 document, etc. they never looked at
McChrystal, who was at the center of these actions.
Like Pat Tillman, Senator Webb‘s been a maverick and a fascinating character. I‘ve read
his novels for thirty years. His betrayal of the Tillman family cuts me the deepest. I‘ve
101
trusted his sense of honor for thirty years. If anyone in Congress should have cared, it
would have been him (For example, Webb, as a young Marine veteran spent 8 years to
clear the name of a dead Marine for his mother‘s sake!)
Yet, during the same time in April – May 2008, after he received my letter imploring him
to help Mary Tillman, he was conducting a secret ―review‖ of McChrystal‘s actions in
the Tillman cover-up. Shortly afterwards, while Mary Tillman was in DC on her book
tour, the Senate Armed Services Committee (headed by Levin and McCain) held their
secret ―executive session‖ to hear McChrystal testify. Shortly thereafter, the Senate
promoted him to Director of the Joint Staff.
I‘m hard on Webb not because I dislike the man, but that I‘m disappointed by him. As an
old man and politician, he‘s turned into exactly what he once reviled as a young soldier! I
find it tragic to see Webb compromising his sense of honor (perhaps even Pat Tillman
would have done so as well, if he had lived long enough?). I even believe Webb‘s doing
it with the best of intentions, that he believes McChrystal is indispensable to the Afghan
war. But I still don‘t forgive him for it. Or like it.
And I‘m certainly not casting all the blame for the sins of Congress onto Senator Webb.
Henry Waxman, Chairman Carl Levin, Senator McCain, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid
and others in Congress bear greater responsible than Webb. It just happens I know more
about Webb and his role and have had personal interactions with his office.
In my binder, ―Lies’s … Borne Out by Lies If Not the Truth,‖ I discuss The New York
Times role in whitewashing McChrystal‘s role in the cover-up of the Tillman fratricide. I
pretty much lay it all out in the binder, starting with an overview and going into more
detail. I didn‘t come away from my personal experience with Thom Shanker and ―The
Gray Lady‖ with any confidence in our ―watchdog‖ media. And I‘d like to point out that
Thom Shanker also participated in the Jessica Lynch story in 2003. I haven‘t dug into that
side of the story much, although I included an article in the binder by Gregg Mitchell
about it.
I believe that President Obama was certainly aware of General McChrystal‘s involvement
in the cover-up of Tillman‘s fratricide. I cannot imagine that his staff did not thoroughly
vet McChrystal before his nomination on May 12th. Yet Obama chose to give him a pass,
and promote him to the Army‘s highest rank and make him the new commander of the
Afghan War. It‘s ironic that the previous general was fired to make way for McChrystal.
However, it‘s even more ironic that the following day Obama gave a commencement
address at Arizona State University inside Sun Devil Stadium without once mentioning
102
Pat Tillman! I‘m sure that he didn‘t want to bring up Tillman‘s name to avoid anyone
pointing out the connection to McChrystal‘s nomination. …
It‘s not surprising that after the initial fratricide cover-up fell apart, that Army officers
and the Bush administration lied to protect their careers. Reprehensible, but
understandable. But the Democratic Congress, after they took control of both Houses in
2006, could have gone after those responsible. Or at least not promoted them! Their
hands are dirty as well with the betrayal of Pat Tillman.
Clearly, despite (or because of) Andrew Exum‘s background as an Army Ranger officer
in Afghanistan, he was a poor choice to review Jon Krakauer‘s book. He simply has too
many personal and professional conflicts of interest with General McChrystal. And,
Exum hasn‘t done his due diligence and done any significant research into the Tillman
case. Instead of unsupported opinion and bluster, he needs to look at the source
documents. He could begin by reading Mary Tillman‘s book, perhaps give her a phone
call, or I‘d be happy to school him by passing on the information in my binders.
P.S. Lest I be accused by Exum of being ―on the fringes of the American Left,‖ I am not a
Republican. Nor a Democrat. I‘m an independent, disgusted with the corruption of both parties.
Hell, I even voted for Nader in 2008! (maybe that does put me on the "fringes"?)
As far as my ―martial virtues‖ go, I‘ve spent the last eighteen years as a firefighter and the eight
years before that with an LRRP company from 1983 – 1991, as a SGT with Co. ―F‖ (Ranger),
425th Infantry
...
I‘ve never received any response from Andrew Exum addressing my criticism of his defense of
Gen. McChrystal and Exum‘s ―crappy‖ book review.
*Fisking From Wikipedia:
103
...
I love this new verb! I just discovered it today (1-14-11). Ironically, Andrew Exum mentioned
―fisking‖ in a post just a month earlier, ―The Financial World Meets Robert Fisk (Oct. 8, 2009).
I think ―savaging an argument and scattering the tattered remnants to the four corners of the
internet…‖ is an accurate description of my rebuttal of Exum‘s book review and blog post.
At least a few other readers agreed with me: “Kaboom. Total slaughter. Well done, Guy
Montag‖ … “Great stuff Guy. I love you AM, but Guy just made your ass bleed‖ … “I agree
with Guy, one "crappy" book report.‖

Crappy New Book"
Storms, Teapots, etc.

104
I think Gen. McChrystal erred in talking publicly about the war in Afghanistan because he is
a man who, constitutionally, cannot not tell the truth about his assessment of the war and
what we need to do differently. And now that he's the ISAF commander, he can't go on
making public speeches because what he says has political import. But I have not been able
to get all worked up over this or have sympathy for those trying to make this out to be
MacArthur '51. …
...
General McChrystal’s Credibility Problem
Jon Krakauer, The Daily Beast -- October 15, 2009
The man chosen by Barack Obama to lead the war in Afghanistan also helped cover up the
friendly-fire death of NFL player turned soldier Pat Tillman, writes Jon Krakauer. He
administered a fraudulent medal recommendation to keep the public in the dark. So why isn‘t
anybody talking about it?
Shortly after President Obama nominated Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal to command U.S. and
NATO forces in Afghanistan, the general was summoned to the U.S. Senate to be grilled by the
Armed Services Committee. Although McChrystal had enthusiastic admirers on both sides of
the congressional aisle and was regarded as an innovative, uncommonly effective leader, he was
expected to face difficult questions about two incidents that occurred during his tenure as leader
of the Joint Special Operations Command (or JSOC): the torture of detainees in 2003 at the
secret facility in Iraq known as Camp Nama, and his role in the cover-up of Pat Tillman‘s
fratricide in Afghanistan in 2004. During the committee hearing, though, none of McChrystal‘s
inquisitors probed deeply into either of these issues, and on June 10 the Senate unanimously
confirmed his nomination.
McChrystal has lately been the subject of numerous media profiles, most of them adulatory.
Dexter Filkins has a long story in the upcoming New York Times Magazine. In an October 5
Newsweek article, Evan Thomas referred to the general as a ―Zen warrior… with a disarming,
low-key style, free of the bombast and sense of entitlement that can come with four stars…. He
has great political skills; he couldn‘t have risen to his current position without them. But he
definitely does not see himself as the sort of military man who would compromise his principles
to do the politically convenient thing.‖
In the week after Tillman was killed, however, this is precisely what McChrystal appears to have
done when he administered a fraudulent medal recommendation and submitted it to secretary of
the Army, thereby concealing the cause of Tillman‘s death.
***
105
Tillman was accidentally gunned down by members of his Ranger platoon on the evening of
April 22, 2004. Lt. Col. Jeffrey Bailey, commander of the 2nd Ranger Battalion, visited the site
of the calamity the following morning. A few hours later, he called his boss, Col. James Nixon,
commander of the 75th Ranger Regiment, and said (according to Bailey‘s sworn testimony),
―My gut feeling was that Tillman had been killed by friendly fire…. There was no doubt about
it. It was a case where there were six or seven Rangers that saw the vehicle shooting at them.‖
Before the day was out, Nixon notified three of his superiors, including McChrystal, that
Tillman‘s death was a fratricide. According to Army regulations, this information should have
been immediately shared with the Tillman family, even if friendly fire was only a possibility.
Instead, Army officers embarked on an elaborate campaign to suppress the truth and persuade
both the family and the public that Tillman was killed by enemy fire. Soldiers were ordered to
lie. Tillman‘s notebook, uniform, ammo vest, and body armor were burned, in clear violation of
other important protocols.
At the time of Tillman‘s fratricide, McChrystal was only a one-star general, but as commander of
JSOC he ran the most covert branch of the U.S. armed forces. Shrewd, driven, and willing to
bend rules to get results, 13 months earlier he‘d commanded the Navy SEALs, Delta Force
operators, and Army Rangers who‘d rescued Jessica Lynch from her captors in Iraq. Vice
President Dick Cheney and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld held McChrystal in the
highest esteem, and regularly bypassed the chain of command to communicate with him directly.
He was trustworthy. He worked under the radar and got stuff done. He didn‘t suffer from ―the
slows,‖ as Rumsfeld characterized the risk-averse nature of some of McChrystal‘s superiors.
Within two days of Tillman‘s death, officers in the 2nd Ranger Battalion initiated paperwork to
give Tillman the Silver Star, the military‘s third highest decoration for valor. McChrystal was put
in charge of writing and expediting the medal recommendation so that the award could be
announced in advance of a nationally televised memorial service scheduled for May 3.
According to McChrystal‘s Senate testimony, he
―sat down with the people who recommended [the Silver Star]… and we went over a
whiteboard, and we looked at the geometry of the battlefield, and I queried the people to
satisfy myself that, in fact, that his actions warranted [the Silver Star], even though there
was a potential that the actual circumstances of death had been friendly fire.‖
The latter clause is a lawyerly flourish on McChrystal‘s part, intended to suggest that there was
still doubt about the cause of death, when in fact he knew with near-absolute certainty that
Tillman was the victim of fratricide. During the medal-recommendation process, McChrystal
was shown the preliminary findings of a so-called Article 15-6 investigation that had been
launched the day after Tillman died, which included detailed eyewitness testimony from more
106
than a dozen soldiers in his platoon. … On April 28, 2004, six days after Tillman‘s death,
McChrystal reviewed a final draft of the medal recommendation, signed his name to it, and
emailed it to the acting secretary of the Army, R.L. Brownlee.
The recommendation package received by Brownlee consisted of four documents …

Astoundingly, none of these documents mentioned, or even hinted, that Tillman was killed by
friendly fire. The award citation alleged, ―Corporal Tillman put himself in the line of
devastating enemy fire,‖ even though there was never any enemy fire directed at Tillman‘s
position during the incident. The witness statements (which also suggested he was killed by the
enemy) were not signed, and the two soldiers whose names were attached to them later testified
that both statements had been fabricated, apparently by one or more members of the Silver Star
recommendation team.
In June of this year, during McChrystal‘s confirmation hearing, Sen. John McCain asked the
general to explain why, five years earlier, he had submitted the perjured Silver Star
recommendation ―in the form that it was in.‖
McChrystal replied,
―We sent a Silver Star that was not well written—and, although I went through the
process, I will tell you now that I didn‘t review the citation well enough to capture—or, I
didn‘t catch that, if you read it, you can imply that it was not friendly fire.‖
McChrystal insisted that the package of four short documents bearing his signature wasn‘t
meant to deceive. Although he closely supervised the drafting of these documents, he
simply failed to notice that all of them had been painstakingly written to omit any reference to
friendly fire.
During a presentation on October 3 of this year in Mesa, Arizona, to promote Where Men Win
Glory, my book about Tillman, I described the testimony cited above and expressed skepticism
about McChrystal‘s honesty. Afterward, while I was signing books, an Army veteran approached
me and said that he had served under McChrystal, admired him immensely, and took issue with
my accusation that his former commander had dissembled to the Senate, or knowingly
participated in any sort of cover-up. He said that in his experience McChrystal was a man of
unimpeachable integrity. I countered that McChrystal‘s words were taken verbatim from a
transcript of the Senate hearing, and then added, ―Gen. McChrystal is known to be meticulous, a
perfectionist. He doesn‘t tolerate sloppiness or excuses. Do you really believe that he would sign
his name to such an important, high-profile document without first reading it carefully enough to
realize it was bogus?‖
107
The ex-soldier frowned thoughtfully before answering. ―No,‖ he admitted. ―For him to do
something like that, he‘d have to be under incredible pressure.‖
***
On April 28, 2004, the same day McChrystal sent the Silver Star recommendation to the
secretary of the Army, he received word from Rumsfeld‘s office that the White House was
working on a speech in which President Bush would eulogize Tillman at the annual White House
Correspondents‘ Association dinner. Because the true cause of Tillman‘s death had been
restricted to a tight cadre that did not include the president‘s speechwriters, McChrystal fretted
they might inadvertently script something that would make the president look like a liar should
the truth about Tillman eventually be leaked.
To forestall such a gaffe, one day after submitting the falsified medal recommendation,
McChrystal emailed a high-priority personal memo (known as a ―Personal For‖ memo, or simply
a ―P4‖) to Gen. John Abizaid, the commander of all troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, and two
other general officers. ―Sir, in the aftermath of Corporal Patrick Tillman‘s untimely yet heroic
death in Afghanistan on 22 April 04,‖ McChrystal wrote,
―it is anticipated that a 15-6 investigation nearing completion will find that it is highly
possible that Corporal Tillman was killed by friendly fire. This potential finding is
exacerbated by the unconfirmed but suspected reports that [the president of the United
States] and the secretary of the Army might include comments about Corporal Tillman‘s
heroism and his approved Silver Star medal in speeches currently being prepared…. I felt
that it was essential that you received this information as soon as we detected it in order
to preclude any unknowing statements by our country‘s leaders which might cause public
embarrassment if the circumstances of Corporal Tillman‘s death become public.‖
Many months later, after the cover-up unraveled and the Tillman family demanded the Army
reveal who was responsible for the many lies they‘d been told, McChrystal would spin the P4
memo as proof that he never meant to conceal the fratricide. But McChrystal took no action to
halt the cover-up and divulge the truth; his memo merely sounded the alarm that someone
needed to warn speechwriters to be ambiguous about the cause of death when crafting statements
about Tillman, in order to provide President Bush with deniability. (In the speech Bush gave at
the correspondents‘ dinner two days after the P4 was sent, the president praised Tillman for his
courage and sacrifice, but pointedly made no mention of how he died.)
If McChrystal had a change of heart after submitting the falsified medal recommendation and
wanted the truth to be revealed, all he needed to do was pick up the phone, inform the secretary
of the Army that Tillman was killed by friendly fire, and ask him to put the Silver Star on hold
until the paperwork could be corrected. That didn‘t happen. Instead, Secretary Brownlee
approved the medal based on the spurious documents submitted by McChrystal, and on April 30
108
the Army issued a press release announcing that Tillman had been posthumously awarded the
Silver Star. Because it made no mention of friendly fire, none of the hundreds of news stories
based on the press release reported anything about friendly fire, and the nation was kept in the
dark about the fratricide. As Brigadier General Howard Yellen later testified, ―For the civilian on
the street, the interpretation would be that he was killed by enemy fire.‖
… Given the overwhelming challenges the United States faces in Afghanistan, and President
Obama‘s determination that Gen. McChrystal is the most qualified person to command our
military campaign there, some may wonder why his dishonesty about Tillman should matter. It
matters because deceit by a military officer of McChrystal‘s rank is a poisonous betrayal of trust
that shouldn‘t be countenanced. The possibility that his subterfuge was intended to mislead the
public during the run-up to a presidential election is especially troubling. ―What we have here is
a very clear, deliberate abuse intentionally done,‖ lamented Rep. Henry Waxman at the
conclusion of a 2007 hearing into the Tillman coverup by the House Committee on Oversight
and Government Reform. ―Why is it so hard to find out who did it?‖
Jon Krakauer Interviewed on Meet the Press

Meet the Press – November 1, 2009
GREGORY: Jon Krakauer, I want to get to a key element of your book, "Where Men Win
Glory," about Pat Tillman and how it relates to this current conversation about Afghanistan.
Because it does involve General Stanley McChrystal, who was obviously critical on the stage
now and was critical in the Tillman story of well. … So Pat Tillman was killed in a friendly fire
incident and ultimately won the Silver Star, and that's what you focus on in the book and in a
subsequent piece that you wrote for The Daily Beast. …Briefly explain what happened.
MR. KRAKAUER: The--after Tillman died, the most important thing to know is that within--
instantly, within 24 hours certainly, everybody on the ground, everyone intimately involved
knew it was friendly fire. There's never any doubt it was friendly fire. McChrystal was told
109
within 24 hours it was friendly fire. Also, immediately they started this paperwork to give
Tillman a Silver Star. And the Silver Star ended up being at the center of the cover-up. So
McChrystal--Tillman faced this devastating fire from his own guys, and he tried to protect a
young private by exposing himself to this, this fire. That's why he was killed and the private
wasn't. Without friendly fire there's no valor, there's no Silver Star. There was no enemy fire,
yet McChrystal authored, he closely supervised over a number of days this fraudulent medal
recommendation that talked about devastating enemy fire.
…
GREGORY: Even those who were critical of him and the Army say they don't think he willfully
deceived anyone.
MR. KRAKAUER: That's correct. He, he just said now he didn't read this hugely important
document about the most famous soldier in the military. He didn't read it carefully enough to
notice that it talked about enemy fire instead of friendly fire? That's preposterous. That, that's
not believable.
We'll continue our discussion with Jon Krakauer in our MEET THE PRESS Take Two Web
Extra. Plus, read an excerpt from his book, "Where Men Win Glory." It's all on our Web site at
mtp.msnbc.com. And we'll be right back.
(Announcements)
GREGORY: That's all for today. We'll be back next week. If it's Sunday, it's MEET THE
PRESS.
On Martial Virtue ... and Selling Jon Krakauer's Crappy New Book
November 2, 2009 | Posted by Abu Muqawama - 9:30am | 68 Comments (as of 11-06-09)
A few months ago, I was asked to review Jon Krakauer's new book by the Washington Post, and
I must admit to having been excited. Having grown up a pretty serious rock climber, I was a
huge fan of Jon Krakauer's previous books, and in my mind, Krakauer was the best possible guy
to write a book on the incredible life and tragic death of Pat Tillman.
Alas, the book was awful. I mean, it was really bad. On the same day in which I had very little
good to say about it in the Post, it was similarly panned by Dexter Filkins in the New York Times
Sunday Book Review. The book was so bad that Filkins and I managed to find completely
different reasons to think it was rubbish. The main problem I had with the book was that
Krakauer let his visceral hatred of the Bush Administration get in the way of telling what could
110
have been a pretty good story about an amazing young man who gave up a career in the NFL to
enlist in the U.S. Army and then died in Afghanistan, killed by a member of his own platoon in a
firefight gone horribly wrong.
In my review, I did not spare -- as you might have expected me to do, given the particular U.S.
Army regiment in which I was serving -- Pat Tillman's chain of command for what were a series
of monumental cock-ups in the aftermath of Tillman's death. I thought it particularly
unconscionable that Tillman's battalion commander sent a young Ranger to the funeral and
expected him to go along with the lie about how Tillman died until his family could be notified
once the battalion had returned. (A friend reminded me later that the 2nd Ranger Battalion had
very little experience dealing with combat casualties up until that point in the war, which is a
good point that I might have mentioned.)
But a very wise woman -- and a former C-130 pilot -- told me once that when you're examining
military miscues, you should draw a long line on a sheet of paper and write "conspiracy" on one
end of the line and "buffoonery" on the other. The odds are in favor of buffoonery -- the act
whereby otherwise intelligent people make a series of stupid decisions -- being a more likely
explanation for what went wrong than conspiracy.
Not in Krakauer's world. In Krakauer's world, there is no rock in Afghanistan under which a plot
cooked up by Donald Rumsfeld and Doug Feith is not hiding. This guy even went so far as to say
that the Ranger Regiment's strict adherence to timelines was a by-product of the Bush
Administration and Rumsfeld's Pentagon. (Funny, and here I grew up thinking it was because
things like airfield seizures are really complex operations that demand subordinate units be
places and do things according to schedule.)
So Krakauer wrote a crappy book, and now he has to market it. And how is he doing that? By
going after Stan McChrystal, who is probably the least culpable guy in Tillman's chain of
command [actually personally supervised cover-up] for any of the stupid things that happened in
the aftermath of his death. There Krakauer was, on Meet the Press yesterday, going after
McChrystal, who he never interviewed [refused all interviews on the subject] for his book but
who had sent a memorandum up through the chain of command at the time of Tillman's death
[No, sent 6 days after getting verbal confirmation of friendly-fire from the 15-6 investigating
officer] warning his commanders about the circumstances surrounding the event. In the great
tragic story that is the death of Pat Tillman, Stan McChrystal stands out as one of the guys who
made mistakes but ultimately did the right thing. …
Here's what really upsets me. I know that Jon Krakauer has to sell his book, but in doing so, he
is cravenly seizing upon the fact that Stan McChrystal is the man of the moment to do so even
111
though by doing so Krakauer once again takes the focus off Pat Tillman and politicizes his death
in as crummy a way as the Bush Administration ever did.
On the night Pat Tillman was killed, I myself was leading a platoon of Army Rangers as part of a
quick reaction force in Afghanistan under the command of Stan McChrystal (albeit many rungs
down on the chain of command). I heard the casualty report on the radio en route to another
objective, but I did not discover it had been Pat Tillman who was killed until returning to base
the next evening.
On returning to base, I walked into my battalion commander's [LTC Bailey?] office and started
chatting with him, as I often did, about books. This was the guy who had introduced me to books
like The Centurions and A Savage War of Peace, and before long, we started talking about Pat
Tillman. Tillman's highly emotional repatriation ceremony had been that night, and we were
thinking about how his death would hit the news back in the States. (We were serving in a
different battalion, and I at least had no idea Tillman was killed by friendly fire. I would not
learn that fact until I had returned to the United States a week later [but Tillman‘s family wasn‘t
told for another month. So Exum knew what was supposedly a closely-held secret, but not
Rumsfeld, Abizaid, Bush, etc?] Toward the end of our conversation, I remember my battalion
commander saying that he "could throw a rock in this compound and hit ten Pat Tillmans".
What he meant by that was no slight on Pat Tillman, a man who in life and in death embodied
courage and sacrifice and a host of other virtues and traits. What he meant by that was that so
too did every one of the Rangers who followed me onto a very cold mountaintop in eastern
Afghanistan the night Tillman was killed. So too did all of the other Rangers and special
operators on the compound. Hell, none of us were drafted. We were four-time volunteers -- we
volunteered for the Army, we volunteered for the Airborne Course, we volunteered for the
Ranger Course, and we volunteered to serve in the Ranger Regiment. None of us were dead-end
high school drop-outs with no other place to go. The guy who was #1 in his class at West Point
was a fellow platoon leader in my battalion [LT Uthlaut (?) who was hit in the face by the same
fire that killed Tillman. Uthlaut was kicked out of the Rangers for ―failure to control his
troops‖]. Our intelligence officer went to Cornell. My forward observer was captain of the
baseball team at James Madison and turned down law school to enlist in the Rangers. (And now
works in the Obama Administration, by the way.) We all had better places to be than fighting a
war in eastern Afghanistan and all of us could have chosen a more comfortable and profitable
way to spend our twenties.
But in the eyes of Krakauer and on the fringes of the American left, soldiers are either victims of
circumstance or war criminals in waiting. If soldiers have any martial virtues such as those
displayed by Pat Tillman, we're only comfortable celebrating them posthumously. This allows a
guy like Krakauer to praise Pat Tillman but slander Stan McChrystal, a guy who has spent 30+
112
years faithfully serving his country in the most demanding jobs -- jobs which require not just
hard work but martial virtues we Americans have lost the ability to even speak about.
Stan McChrystal is one of the finest men I have ever known, and I hope I have sons who serve
under men like him. Jon Krakauer is going after him now because he has written a crappy book
and now has to sell it. McChrystal is in the news, and that gives Krakauer's book relevance, even
if the virtues of Pat Tillman fade to the background. That really makes me angry. But I guess it
remains a possibility that Jon Krakauer wrote an entire book about Pat Tillman without ever
understanding the kind of man he was -- and that there might exist other men like him.
Guy Montag & Other’s Comments to “On Martial Virtue…”
Comment by Guy Montag on November 2, 2009 - 6:07pm
―When reporting as a ―journalist‘ for the army, you quickly learn there is no news but
good news. … I put my Ivy League English degree to use writing shallow propaganda. …
I made it a game to see just how falsely positive I could be. … the Dept of Public Affairs
in Washington DC named me one of the army‘s ―Outstanding Journalists.‖ … I had
earned my first medal from the army for writing in a newspaper.‖
-- Andrew Exum, ―This Man‘s Army‖ (2004)
113
―They ought to make a movie about this. Mr. Smith comes to Washington.‖ ―Yeah, I
called my pa lastnight and he says, Judd boy, you been up there with them muck-a-mucks
two days, now. Did they teach you how to lie yet?‖
-- James Webb, ―A Country Such As This‖ (1983)

...
Andrew Exum asserts that ―Stan McChrystal stands out as one of the guys who made mistakes
but ultimately did the right thing … probably the least culpable guy in Tillman‘s chain of
command … who sent a memorandum up through the chain of command at the time of Tillman‘s
death warning his commanders … Stan McChrystal is one of the finest men I have ever known,
and I hope I have sons who serve under men like him.‖
Well, as one blogger wrote, ―Phew, talk about a man crush. … the normally witty and sarcastic
Abu Muqawama has turned into a walking billboard for Gen. McChrystal …‖) Andrew Exum is
a self-professed ―fan‖ of McChrystal, during media appearances he lavished praise on General
McChrystal: ―… you really need a silver bullet …You have one chance to get this right, and
starter in anyone's line-up‖.
In his book review, Andrew Exum neglected to mention General McChrystal‘s role in the
Tillman case or disclose his close personal and professional ties with him. This past summer,
Exum spent a month working closely with McChrystal in Afghanistan after being asked by
McChrystal to join his Afghan war assessment team: ‗This [Afghan War Assessment] was
written with about a dozen talented and good-natured co-authors (and the world's most intense
lead author [General McChrystal]) who put up with my smart-assery -- often in enclosed spaces -
- for a whole month‘.‖
And Andrew Exum is a fellow at the Center for a New American Security (CNAS),
"Washington's go-to think tank on military affairs." CNAS has advocated for General
McChrystal‘s expansion of the Afghan War and has very close ties with McChrystal (meets with
him weekly by videoconference) and his mentor General Petraeus.
Before reading this blog entry, I had assumed that Andrew Exum and CNAS were part of the bi-
partisan ―conspiracy‖ protecting General McChrystal, and that Exum had written his book
review to whitewash General McChrystal‘s central role in orchestrating the cover-up of Pat
Tillman‘s fratricide. Just before McChrystal‘s confirmation hearing, Exum wrote ―Confirm
Him‖ in his blog: ―The bottom line is, nothing is ever going to heal the wounds inflicted on the
Tillman Family … And while I have nothing but respect for the Tillman Family…, their personal
grief should not be a veto on the nomination of the man the president, the Secretary of Defense,
114
and General Petraeus all feel gives the United States and its allies the best chance of victory in
Afghanistan …
However, after reading this blog entry, I believe Andrew Exum is either awfully good at feigning
self-righteous outrage or he is woefully ignorant of the most basic facts of the Tillman case.
(And he thinks Krakauer‘s hard on McChrystal? He ought to read Mary Tillman‘s book ―Boots
on the Ground by Dusk‖ which eviscerated McChrystal!)
...
Unlike Exum, I know what I‘m talking about. I‘ve followed the Tillman case the past four years
and have closely examined the reports from the various Army, IG and Congressional
―investigations.‖ McChrystal was probably the most culpable guy in the Tillman case:
McChrystal received confirmation of Tillman‘s fratricide within two days, had the responsibility
to tell the family, made the decision not to tell the family about fratricide, and he supervised the
writing of the ―misleading‖ Silver Star award, and then sent his ―timely‖ prevaricating P4 memo
a week after he learned of the fratricide.
...
Here‘s my take from McChrystal‘s June 2, 2009 Senate confirmation hearing (excerpted from
my 200 page binder, ―Did They Teach You How to Lie Yet?‖ Senator James Webb, General
Stanley McChrystal and the Betrayal of Pat Tillman):
[In the original comment I placed here ―My Response to Gen. McChrystal‘s Testimony‖. See
―Senate Armed Service‘s Committee‘s June 2nd Confirmation Hearing‖ in the post ―Did They
Teach You How to Lie Yet?‖]
Note: You can find more at ―Senate Confirmation Hearing for Gen. McChrystal‘s Promotion
(June 2009)‖ in ―The [Untold] Tillman Story‖.]
...
In his book review, Andrew Exum dismissed Krakauer‘s assertion of a ―conspiracy‖ by the
Army and Bush Administration to cover-up Tillman‘s fratricide. However, the opening lines of
his review actually support just such a ―conspiracy‖ theory. Exum wrote: ―I was standing in an
operations center in Bagram … watching two firefights on the monitors and screens [from a
Predator drone] in front of me … I arrived back in Bagram to learn the name of that Ranger
killed in action: Spec. Patrick Daniel Tillman.‖ Exum watched the video feed from a Predator
drone of the Tillman firefight.
115
Yet, the Army denies the existence of that video that Exum saw with his own eyes. Krakauer
wrote, ――The forward observer … heard an airplane flying overhead …‘As I listened closer I
knew it was a Predator drone.‘ … equipped with cameras … headquarters later confirmed that a
Predator was overhead during the firefight, and a civilian contractor at Bagram said that he
remembered seeing the Predator‘s video feed." During the numerous investigations that would be
undertaken over the next three years, the Army and the CIA nevertheless asserted no such video
existed.‖
―disappeared,‖ just like all copies of the first investigating officer‘s 15-6 report just happened to
vanish! Must have just been another one of those ―blunders‖!
...
Andrew Exum criticized Krakauer‘s ―visceral hatred of the Bush administration‖ and for his
being ―eager to launch an inquisition into the crimes of the Bush Administration…‖ Here, I agree
with Exum that Krakauer focused too much on the sins of the Bush Adminstration.
Krakauer‘s story blaming Bush and the Army for the cover-up, with the Democratic Congress as
the champions in pursuit of the truth is too simple. In reality, the cover-up has been a thoroughly
bipartisan affair, with Congress and the Obama Presidency continuing to protect General
McChrystal from punishment. And the New York Time‘s and their Pentagon Reporter Thom
Shanker playing their role as well.
Congressman Waxman‘s so-called investigation (like the IG report) was not an honest attempt to
get at the truth. I believe that sometime after the April 2007 hearing, Waxman got the word the
―fix‖ was in, to lay off McChrystal. (Perhaps because of McChrystal‘s important covert
contribution to the ―surge‖ in Iraq?) Waxman dropped him from the list of witnesses for the
August 1, 2007 hearing and the testimony during that hearing was a praise-fest for McChrystal.
Despite the concerns raised by the Committee during the April 2007 hearing about the falsified
Silver Star, P4 document, etc. they never looked at McChrystal, who was at the center of these
actions.
Like Pat Tillman, Senator Webb‘s been a maverick and a fascinating character. I‘ve read his
novels for thirty years. His betrayal of the Tillman family cuts me the deepest. I‘ve trusted his
sense of honor for thirty years. If anyone in Congress should have cared, it would have been him
(For example, Webb, as a young Marine veteran spent 8 years to clear the name of a dead Marine
for his mother‘s sake!)
116
Yet, during the same time in April – May 2008, after he received my letter imploring him to help
Mary Tillman, he was conducting a secret ―review‖ of McChrystal‘s actions in the Tillman
cover-up. Shortly afterwards, while Mary Tillman was in DC on her book tour, the Senate
Armed Services Committee (headed by Levin and McCain) held their secret ―executive session‖
to hear McChrystal testify. Shortly thereafter, the Senate promoted him to Director of the Joint
Staff.
I‘m hard on Webb not because I dislike the man, but that I‘m disappointed by him. As an old
man and politician, he‘s turned into exactly what he once reviled as a young soldier! I find it
tragic to see Webb compromising his sense of honor (perhaps even Pat Tillman would have done
so as well, if he had lived long enough?). I even believe Webb‘s doing it with the best of
intentions, that he believes McChrystal is indispensable to the Afghan war. But I still don‘t
forgive him for it. Or like it.
And I‘m certainly not casting all the blame for the sins of Congress onto Senator Webb. Henry
Waxman, Chairman Carl Levin, Senator McCain, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid and others in
Congress bear greater responsible than Webb. It just happens I know more about Webb and his
role and have had personal interactions with his office.
In my binder, ―Lies’s … Borne Out by Lies If Not the Truth,‖ I discuss The New York Times
role in whitewashing McChrystal‘s role in the cover-up of the Tillman fratricide. I pretty much
lay it all out in the binder, starting with an overview and going into more detail. I didn‘t come
away from my personal experience with Thom Shanker and ―The Gray Lady‖ with any
confidence in our ―watchdog‖ media. And I‘d like to point out that Thom Shanker also
participated in the Jessica Lynch story in 2003. I haven‘t dug into that side of the story much,
although I included an article in the binder by Gregg Mitchell about it.
I believe that President Obama was certainly aware of General McChrystal‘s involvement in the
cover-up of Tillman‘s fratricide. I cannot imagine that his staff did not thoroughly vet
McChrystal before his nomination on May 12th. Yet Obama chose to give him a pass, and
promote him to the Army‘s highest rank and make him the new commander of the Afghan War.
It‘s ironic that the previous general was fired to make way for McChrystal.
However, it‘s even more ironic that the following day Obama gave a commencement address at
Arizona State University inside Sun Devil Stadium without once mentioning Pat Tillman! I‘m
sure that he didn‘t want to bring up Tillman‘s name to avoid anyone pointing out the connection
to McChrystal‘s nomination. (Bob Young‘s ―Obama‘s Big-Time Fumble‖ (Arizona Republic 5-
17-09).
117
It‘s not surprising that after the initial fratricide cover-up fell apart, that Army officers and the
Bush administration lied to protect their careers. Reprehensible, but understandable. But the
Democratic Congress, after they took control of both Houses in 2006, could have gone after
those responsible. Or at least not promoted them! Their hands are dirty as well with the betrayal
of Pat Tillman.
...
Instead of addressing Krakauer‘s evidence pointing to a conspiracy, Andrew Exum asserted that
Krakauer, since he is not a combat veteran, cannot have the perspective to make any valid
commentary on the actions of men in combat. Nonsense! (So your colleague Thomas Ricks can‘t
write about war since since he‘s not a veteran?):
―Those who have spent time in the military … tend to err on the side of incompetence,
while those who never have -- such as Krakauer -- tend to suspect conspiracy. …
Krakauer does not appear to understand light infantry combat as well as he does
Apparently, Andrew Exum is unaware that Jon Krakauer spent seven months embedded in
more time than Exum during his tours with the Tenth and his Ranger Batt in 2002 and 2004?
Surely Krakauer‘s experience would give him some standing?
And bashing Krakauer for his lack of respect for the military is absurd: ―in the eyes of Krakauer
… soldiers are either victims of circumstance or war criminals in waiting.‖ Krakauer donated
proceeds from his book tour to veteran organizations and dedicated his book to a soldier he spent
time with in Afghanistan, SFC Jared Monti who died winning the Medal of Honor.
...
Clearly, despite Andrew Exum‘s background as an Army Ranger officer in Afghanistan, he was
a poor choice to review Jon Krakauer‘s book. He simply has too many personal and professional
conflicts of interest with General McChrystal.
And, Exum hasn‘t done his due diligence and done any significant research into the Tillman
case. Instead of unsupported opinion and bluster, he needs to look at the source documents. He
could begin by reading Mary Tillman‘s book, perhaps give her a phone call, or I‘d be happy to
school him by passing on the information in my binders.
118
P.S. Lest I be accused by Exum of being ―on the fringes of the American Left,‖ I am not a
Republican. Nor a Democrat. I‘m an independent, disgusted with the corruption of both parties.
Hell, I even voted for Nader in 2008! (maybe that does put me on the "fringes"!)
As far as my ―martial virtues‖ go, I‘ve spent the last eighteen years as a firefighter and the eight
years before that with an LRRP company (1983 – 1991, SGT Co. ―F‖ (Ranger), 425th INF MI
ARNG).
(@AM: I liked your account of Ranger School in your book "This Man's Army." I've still got
my notebook from where my writing scrawled off the page every other word when I feel asleep
in the classroom)
...
Comment by DRONF on November 2, 2009 - 8:07pm

Kaboom. Total slaughter. Well done, Guy Montag
Comment by Warwick on November 3, 2009 - 1:28am

Great stuff guy. I love you AM, but Guy just made your ass bleed
.
Comment by Visitor on November 3, 2009 - 3:36am

I agree with Guy, one "crappy" book report.
Comment by Mike D. on November 3, 2009 - 3:17am
This post is going to seriously degrade your ability to influence the Afghanistan debate. But I
suspect you know that, and don't care either because you think that ability was already degraded,
or because you consider the debate has passed the tipping point.
Comment by HUS on November 2, 2009 - 8:09pm
Gonna have to go with Guy on this one- and this is coming from someone who generally
sympathizes with Ex's viewpoint.
119
I think the whole post constructed a strawman in regards to debasing Krakauer.

The issue is not how he views American troops, although you reach the point of calling him
unpatriotic and totally ignorant of U.S. military culture, something that I am certain he is not.
You're really taking a page out of the Bush Administration's handbook of how to deal with critics
when you get as ad hominem in a debate as you just did.
The fact of the matter is that McChrystal was totally, inexcusably in the wrong and participated
in a cover-up (the facts all point to this, Andrew, and you would be hard pressed to find someone
who could dispute that).
How about instead of insulting Jon Krakauer on a personal basis, you go through all the issues
that Guy has brought up- all legitimate, publicized concerns- and try to refute them. Bet you
can't. Enough of the man-love, seriously. Admit your impartiality and move on
Comment by Visitor on November 2, 2009 - 3:24pm
If the cover up wasn't more important than the original act, Clinton never would've been
impeached. You can't pretend otherwise, simply because you like the people doing the covering
up. Or because you believe their intentions were good.
Comment by Barry on November 2, 2009 - 2:54pm
" The odds are in favor of buffoonery -- the act whereby otherwise intelligent people make a
series of stupid decisions -- being a more likely explanation for what went wrong than
conspiracy."
I'm not too familiar with the details, but didn't they involve officers repeatedly falsifying reports,
lying through their teeth on more than one occasion, and pretty much getting away with it, even
after being discovered?
That sounds like conspiracy to me. It's hard to remember sometimes, but bog standard widely
prevalent corruption in an organization, along with the further corruption that punishment is only
for the other ranks, is in fact conspiracy. Just as water is wet, even if the fishes don't notice.
And every time something like this comes to light, it's more and more likely that we're not seeing
otherwise intelligent people making series' of stupid decisions, but intelligent people making
very intelligent decisions (to lie), but having the bad luck to be discovered.
120
Comment by Old Grunt on November 2, 2009 - 4:10pm
Actually, rather than "buffoonery" this old Marine would use "ass-covering" and/or "career
preservation." The #1 source of most military decisions. And General McC, for all his virtues,
didn't get to be a general without being a skilled practicioner of the above. Nothing against him,
just reality in today's flag ranks. This old timer would also remind everyone that motive
questioning is a slippery business. You'll always be second guessed. Just like vehemently
defending Generals whose checks you've cashed as an advisor. You may be speaking the truth,
and your honor may be clear, but you're still exposing an open flank.
Comment by Keith on November 2, 2009 - 12:24pm
AM, Come on, the book wasn't "crappy." It included a lot on Pat's life that could have been
edited and unfairly blamed the Bush administration for tactical decisions. That said, a lot of the
book was good. It brought Pat to life and it was the best reconstruction of the events that led to
his death that I have ever read. Mr. Kraukauer's examination of how the Army dealt with
previous friendly fire incidents was commendable.
As far as Gen. McChrystal goes--the link you provided sums up Mr. Kraukauer's concern. Gen.
McChrystal knew when he signed the award that the narrative in the citation was likely false.
Further, to admit not to reading closely a Silver Star cititation for the most famous soldier in the
Army concerns me. You may not think any of that is as big of a deal as Mr. Kraukauer does, but
it bothers me because it begs the question of how other, less famous soldiers were treated. …
Comment by featherock on November 2, 2009 - 3:20pm

Filkins hardly "panned" Krakauer's book. His chief complaint is there's too much padding. That's
a far cry from your criticisms, which are as politicized as you claim Krakauer to be.
Comment by Joseph Cox on November 2, 2009 - 2:34pm
I think almost everything written for a general audience reads better the less you know about it.
… That isn't a defense of Krakauer, as much pointing out the impossibility of pleasing everyone-
especially people with expertise in the subject matter.
You have far more expertise than most, Andrew, but that is why your visceral takedown of
Krakauer feels emotional rather than entirely based on what is on the pages. Dexter Filkins's
review does note the distracting criticism of Bush officials, but praises the account of what
121
happened in Afghanistan and the cover-up, the parts that have you the most incensed. While it is
definitely true that Krakauer is going after General MacChrystal precisely because he is famous,
that is kind of the deal with being a public figure and wasn't MCcchrystal chosen in part because
he was able to deftly handle the media like Petraeus? He is a good man, but no one escapes from
a shit storm like that one completely untarnished.
It is nice to see the man defended, but I don't know if Krakauer deserves condemnation- he isn't
the man MacChrystal is, or you are, but hell neither am I or 99.5% of the U.S. population. If it
was easy, everyone would do it. That's why I try not to be a chicken hawk when I write, it‘s a
hell of a lot easier to advocate for others to be in harms way than to enlist yourself.
Comment by Zarathustra on November 2, 2009 - 8:36pm

AM- respond to GM?
Comment by Cricket on November 3, 2009 - 4:47am

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm, as usual Exum remains silent in the hope that VFW membership
alone is suffice.
...
Comment by Guy Montag on November 3, 2009 - 11:04 am
"... I was the man who misrepresented your intentions with my ignorant words. You have
told me about great works that I cannot understand, about marvels which are beyond me,
of which I know nothing. ... I retract what I have said, and repent in dust and ashes."
-- Job (New Jerusalem Bible)
Sometimes silence is the best compliment.
However, after throwing down my gauntlet, I must admit that I am somewhat disappointed,
although not terribly surprised, that AM has not deigned to respond to my post. Perhaps he has
the good sense to remain silent after what DRONF termed "total slaughter."
122
But I expected a bit more fight from a scrappy East Tennessee redneck (not that I have anything
against rednecks; my Dad was born in the Mississippi hill country just south of Memphis and
grew up in the Delta. AM"s father Roy and my Dad both attended Ole Miss).
To a very limited degree, I actually agree with AM that Krakuer's book was "crappy." But
"crappy" is too strong; I don't have an issue with most of the facts in his book. But as Dexter
Filkins noted in his NYT review Krakauer's effort didn't quite hit the mark (I agree with AM that
Gary Smith at Sports Illustrated did a much better job in his piece "Remember his Name" si.com
9-11-09 and Mary Tillman's book "Boots on the Ground by Dusk" gave a more intimate portrait).
Krakauer's effort was hampered in that he lost the trust of Mary and Kevin Tillman who
refused to have anything to do with his book after reading his first draft. And Krakauer didn't
dig far enough into the story to uncover the Democratic Congress's role in covering
McChrystal's ass. I think Krakauer could have included more detail about the cover-up
instead of the background chapters on Bush and the Afghan war.
It would be nice if AM and his drinking buddy Nate Fick would read "After Pat's Birthday" by
Kevin Tillman (http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/200601019_after_pats_birthday/).
Perhaps they could raise a Guiness to toast Pat Tillman this Friday, November 6th. It would have
been Pat's 31st birthday. Just about AM and Nate's age.
123

**** Financial World fisk mention
Just a week after I ―fisked‖ Andrew Exum‘s blog post, ―On Martial Virtue …And Selling Jon
Krakauer‘s Crappy New Book‖, ** after total slaughter
his posting of ―He Who Shall Not Be Fact Checked‖ struck me as terribly pathetic. incredulous
Does Exum have no sense of irony or self awareness? :
**** hypocrisy unself-conscious lack of irony ironic self-awareness callow, lack of maturity.
―Are you the "He"? Isn't there a bit of projection going on here? Accusing others of
exactly what you do yourself? This past month alone, you‘ve written three posts accusing
others of poor journalism and fact checking …
I responded to your ―Martial Virtue‖ posting with a rather lengthy comment explaining
why I believed that you were either awfully good at feigning self-righteous outrage or
were woefully (and/or willfully) ignorant of the most basic facts of the Tillman case.
Despite your assertion that McChrystal was ―probably the least culpable guy in Tillman's
chain of command‖ the evidence is overwhelming that McChrystal played a key role in
the cover-up of Tillman‘s fratricide. You have the audacity to accuse others of poor fact
checking, yet you haven‘t done any significant research into the Tillman case. You need
more than unsupported opinion and bluster to support your claims …
Sometimes silence is the best compliment. …I‘d welcome your fact-checking prowess
aimed in my direction. But please, stop with the off-the-cuff ad hominum attacks on
others such as Robert Fisk, Sy Hersh, and Jon Krakauer. Take the timber out of your
own eye before casting stones at others.‖
Andrew Exum appears to be far too defensive about his intellectual and moral integrity (Me
thinks he doth protest too much). What appears to be psychological projection of his own faults
onto others appear in several his posts, especially in his 5-17-10 exchange with Carl Prine [a
former Marine and investigative reporter for the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review. In 2005 he re-
enlisted into a National Guard infantry unit and was sent to Iraq]; italics added:
―@Carl Prine: Ah, death, taxes, and Carl Prine's self-righteousness… in your criticisms
you most certainly come off as self-righteous and acidic. Bottom line: you're a jerk. If
you really wanted to criticize me in a constructive manner, you might think about
124
adopting a more humble voice that doesn't feel the need to question my integrity --
intellectual and moral -- at every step along the way and admits that just maybe Carl
Prine doesn't have it all figured out either. The tone … reinforces a suspicion that Carl
Prine is just as intellectually arrogant as he would accuse others of being. The whole "I
am criticizing you because I admire you but now I'm going to launch into an ad hominem
assault on your work and your motives" shtick has worn thin.‖
...
“Civil-Military Relations in the Obama Era” (May 17, 2010): “When you can demonstrate
how I have tempered or amended my views based on my employer or its donor base, Carl, call
me. You better have actual hard evidence before you start slinging accusations of intellectual
dishonesty.”
Really? Do you still stand by your Washington Post book review? Or your post ―On
Martial Virtue … and Selling Jon Krakauer‘s Crappy New Book‖? McChrystal was
hardly "the least culpable guy" in the Tillman case. It appears that you were either being
intellectually dishonest or willfully ignorant.
And, you seem to be a bit too defensive about your intellectual and moral "integrity." I
certainly don't believe you've exhibited either with your WAPO book review or your
exoneration of Gen. McChrystal and the Ranger RGT officers for their role in the
whitewash of Pat Tillman's friendly-fire death.
...
“Journalist FAIL” (June 15, 2010): "he [Risen] could use an extra dose of humility today. ...
Just read what a self-important jerk he sounds like when asked to defend his reporting ... What
phenomenal arrogance. What a jerk."
through in your blog posts which only displayed your ignorance of the matter and/or
complicity in covering for Gen. McChrystal and the Ranger RGT officers involved in the
Tillman case.
...
“On Bacevich, Part I” (Sept. 6, 2010): “Elsewhere, Bacevich makes assertions without
backing them up in facts. … This third fourth of the book was maddening to read because it
struck me as disingenuous.”
125
Exum has no facts to back up his assertions about the Tillman case. Hence, his silence.
How does the saying go, something like, ―Better to be silent and thought the fool, than to
open your mouth and remove all doubt?
...
“On Corruption (And Admitting When You're Wrong)” (Sept. 13, 2010: "I know think tank
researchers, like scholars in academia, are not supposed to admit when they have been wrong
about something. But as regular readers of this blog know, I am not above doing that from time
to time..."
I don't recall a mea culpa on your spirited defense of Gen. McChrystal's role in the cover-
up of Pat Tillman's friendly-fire death last year that concluded with "Stan McChrystal is
one of the finest men I have ever known, and I hope I have sons who serve under men
like him."
...
“From the Dept. of Intellectual Dishonesty” (Sept. 29, 2010): "But this is the kind of stuff that
gives think tank researchers a bad name. ... when an author is selectively sourcing his argument
and deliberately avoiding evidence or conclusions that might weaken his thesis. Again, this is
worse than disingenuous. This is dishonest."
AM is the "pot calling the kettle black". AM could be talking about himself. Last year he
did the same [as he accuses Abrams] with his dishonest review of Jon Krakauer's "Where
Men Win Glory" for the Washington Post and his indefensible defense of Gen.
McChrystal's central role in the Pat Tillman affair.
...
“Abu Muqawama Sells Out!” (Dec. 3, 2009): ―I think this is another case of "they disagree
with me on policy, therefore they must be intellectually dishonest". Or, hey, maybe we instead
have a different set of assumptions, educations and experiences which lead us toward different
conclusions. … ―
It would be nice if Mr. Exum would actually extend that courtesy to others. Before his
short "retirement" from blogging, he has been quick to hurl ad hominum attacks instead
of addressing the merits of arguments with which he disagrees. … Quite possibly, Mr.
Exum believes his own BS. As the saying goes, "It is difficult to get a man to understand
something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it."
...
126
“ajay”: ―… I think the point is not that CNAS, or you, … is being dishonest - just that
defense companies are going to prefer to support people and organizations which are
arguing (sincerely or otherwise) for an aggressive foreign policy. If CNAS started saying
"we should cut the Navy in half, turn the Army into an all-reserve force and scrap the
SSN fleet" I think it's safe to say that the funding from defense companies might well dry
up. So there's an institutional bias: people who sincerely believe in an aggressive policy
will get the money; people who don't won't.‖
The Financial World Meets Robert Fisk

This would be really funny if it were not so serious. After Robert Fisk -- whose very name
has long been a verb meaning to viciously fact-check -- wrote a very thinly sourced article in
the Independent on how the end was neigh for the dollar, traders and speculators made and
lost billions as the dollar weakened. …
… At this point in Fisk's career, it is increasingly hard to tell when Fisk is even sober let
alone actually reporting a story. It's really sad, too, because once upon a time … Robert Fisk
was a great reporter. Now he's a punch line, despised by his fellow journalists for the way he
stopped real reporting years ago yet makes himself seem in his articles as if he -- and he
alone -- has the courage to really report the news in muddy boots. I once challenged him to
his face about an article he wrote about Margaret Hassan in which he suggested the U.S.
military was behind her murder. He got angry and let me know that such was his reputation
that his editor at the Independent never feels the need to check his sources. And that's exactly
the problem, I replied. Some people only buy the Independent for Robert Fisk, so the
newspaper -- which is never in the best of health -- has a strong financial incentive to let him
do whatever the hell he wants.
...
Fisking From Wikipedia:
127
He Who Shall Not Be Fact-Checked

November 9, 2009 | Posted by Abu Muqawama - 9:22am | 22 Comments
Hey, look, everybody, Seymour Hersh has another article for the New Yorker. In this one,
people told him a bunch of stuff, and him not wanting to make people feel bad, he went
ahead and printed all of it. I have no idea what percentage of this article is true and what
percentage is just some stuff people made up. I'm still coming to grips with having been a
henchman in Dick Cheney's executive assassination ring [McChrystal‘s JSOC], so you guys
are on your own to make guesses in the comments section. 70/30? 50/50? 20/80?
I had a few quotes of mine mangled in a New Yorker article recently, and that article was
written by a really well-respected journalist, so I can only imagine the editing process for Sy
Hersh articles. My theory is that Hersh's journalism is a little like a 12-gauge shotgun. He
just lets it go, and something is bound to hit the target. But each year, it seems, another inch
is shaved off the barrel, so the shot group gets wider and wider. Over time, fewer and fewer
pellets actually hit the target, but such is his reputation that people only remember the articles
of his that actually exposed something new and none of the articles that, in retrospect, turned
out to be just crazy talk.
...
Comment by Guy Montag on November 9, 2009 - 6:23pm:
@ AM ―He Who Shall Not Be Fact-Checked.‖ Are you the "He"? Isn't there a bit of projection
going on here? Accusing others of exactly what you do yourself? This past month alone, you‘ve
written three posts accusing others of poor journalism and fact checking:
The Financial World Meets Robert Fisk (10-08-09):
128
―it is increasingly hard to tell when [Robert] Fisk is even sober let alone actually reporting a
story. ... he stopped real reporting years ago ... such was his reputation that his editor at the
Independent never feels the need to check his sources. And that's exactly the problem, I replied.‖
He Who Shall Not Be Fact-Checked 11-09-09):
―My theory is that Hersh's journalism is a little like a 12-gauge shotgun. He just lets it go, and
something is bound to hit the target.‖
On Martial Virtue ... and Selling Jon Krakauer's Crappy New Book (11-02-09):
―A few months ago, I was asked to review Jon Krakauer's new book by the Washington Post ...
the book was awful. I mean, it was really bad. ... Krakauer wrote a crappy book, and now he has
to market it. And how is he doing that? By going after Stan McChrystal, who is probably the
least culpable guy in Tillman's chain of command ... Stan McChrystal stands out as one of the
guys who made mistakes but ultimately did the right thing. ... Stan McChrystal is one of the
finest men I have ever known, and I hope I have sons who serve under men like him. Jon
Krakauer is going after him now because he has written a crappy book and now has to sell it. ―
… I responded to your ―Martial Virtue‖ posting with a rather lengthy comment explaining why I
believed that you were either awfully good at feigning self-righteous outrage or were woefully
ignorant of the most basic facts of the Tillman case. Despite your assertion that McChrystal was
―probably the least culpable guy in Tillman's chain of command‖ the evidence is overwhelming
that McChrystal played a key role in the cover-up of Tillman‘s fratricide.
You have the audacity to accuse others of poor fact checking, yet you haven‘t done any
significant research into the Tillman case. You need more than unsupported opinion and bluster
to support your claims and criticisms of Krakauer's book.
Unlike yourself, I‘ve closely followed the Tillman case and have dug into the Tillman reports
from the various Army, IG and Congressional ―investigations. Last Friday, I finally posted some
of the documents backing up my claims at: feralfirefighter.blogspot.com. I‘d welcome your fact
checking of my work. …
Sometimes silence is the best compliment. … I‘d welcome your fact-checking prowess aimed in
my direction. But please, stop with the off-the-cuff ad hominum attacks on others such as Fisk,
Hersh, and Krakauer. Take the timber out of your own eye before casting stones at others.
Put up or shut up.
129
...
"In this one, people told him a bunch of stuff, and him not wanting to make people feel bad, he
went ahead and printed all of it."
I'd watch your calling out of others here. Just how would you describe your relationship with
General McChrytal? Isn't it kinda the same as what you just criticzed Hersh for? You get
money, media exposure etc. in exchange for parroting the military's line? Isn't that pretty similar
to hearing "a bunch of stuff" and "not wanting to make people feel bad" going "ahead and
printing it?"
oh and could you cite some of the specific examples from the Hersh story that should have been
fact-checked? Kind of odd to accuse someone of poor journalistic standards without providing
anything to back it up
.......I'm inclined to agree with you about Hersch's journalism but the same could be said of a lot
of journalism these days. He has his sources and they feed him lots of stuff some of it good and
some less so. It's seems to me that most of the media comment these days is slanted either with
the aim of peddling some sources line or just creating controversy. Hence caveat emptor. All
journalism needs to be read with a fair degree of scepticism although as it happens I consider
Mayer a more than usually reliable source. As others have pointed out if caveat emptor is
required with many journalists it is doubly required with yourself I fear. Do you really consider
yourself in all good conscience an independant and objective commentator on events in
Afghanistan and Iraq. Cross your heart and hope to die.
Comment by glasnost on November 11, 2009 - 7:26am
Exum, with all due respect, you shouldn't even post something like this without rather a lot more
care to display some evidence. It comes off as whiny, personal-conflict-driven baloney. Seymour
Hersh - breaking accurate news (about the program in general) that was rather important for the
American people to know and is by the way classified out the wazoo, making it impossible for
130
*any* reporter to be sure if his details are correct - happens to be misinformed that you may have
been involved, and you think this kind of thing represents any sort of systematic evaluation of
the man's work?
You're embarrassing yourself, and demeaning your blog. Once upon a time, I sort of respected
CNAS.. and you. It's possible that Seymour Hersh's accuracy is falling below par. I'm not really
sure. You certainly haven't convinced me.
This post really was an embarrassment. I mean who do you think you are? You have produced
no significant scholarship to note, have served one term in the Army, and are good at self-
promotion. You come across as a total punk in these kinds of posts. You're getting the press that
you're getting because you've jumped on the war bandwagon and are in the right place at the
right time to narrate what the Military wants narrated to the general public. Don't assume it‘s
anything more than that. If I were you I would quit the blog because it‘s not doing anything for
your reputation.
Abu Muqawama Sells Out!

December 3, 2009 | Posted by Abu Muqawama - 11:04pm | 53 Comments
Oh, for goodness sake. Nathan Hodge starts by asking some fair questions about where defense
and foreign policy think tanks get their money. … But Matthew Yglesias takes things a step too
far. … I think you're going to have a very tough time, though, arguing that those making the case
for a fundamentally low-tech COIN campaign in Afghanistan are carrying water for Boeing,
Lockheed Martin, & Co.
… I think this is another case of "they disagree with me on policy, therefore they must be
intellectually dishonest". Or, hey, maybe we instead have a different set of assumptions,
educations and experiences which lead us toward different conclusions. Maybe. (I'm just going
to throw that out there as a possibility.) Anyway, I would ponder this question more but have to
first go hop in the bathtub filled with gold Krugerrands donated to me by General Dynamics in
thanks for my service to the evil military industrial complex.
Update: Yglesias writes in. … ―I feel like you've engaged in a really egregious misreading of
my post. …‖
131
…Anyway, I'm probably being too sensitive. But I should point out that a) CNAS makes the
names of its corporate donors public, b) CNAS has over 100 donors and c) no single one of those
donors contributes more than 5% of our budget. (And d), donors don't have editorial control.
Obviously.)
...
Comment by Visitor [GUY MONTAG] on December 4, 2009 - 11:01pm:
Mr. Exum wrote: "I think this is another case of "they disagree with me on policy, therefore they
must be intellectually dishonest. Or, hey, maybe we instead have a different set of assumptions,
educations and experiences which lead us toward different conclusions."
It would be nice if Mr. Exum would actually extend that courtesy to others. Before his short
"retirement" from blogging, he has been quick to hurl ad hominum attacks instead of addressing
the merits of arguments with which he disagrees. …
Previously, I've addressed Mr. Exum's close personal and professional ties with General
McChrystal and McChrystal's culpability (as well as that of Senator Webb, NYT Thom Shanker,
etc.) in the Tillman case at feralfirefighter.blogspot.com. I believe Mr. Exum is either woefully
ignorant of the most basic facts of the Tillman story or is awfully good at feigning self-righteous
anger.
Quite possibly, Mr. Exum believes his own BS. As the saying goes, "It is difficult to get a man to
understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it."
...
Comment by Adrian on December 4, 2009 - 7:44am:
Exum, you misread Yglesias's post. What he's saying is that "smart honest people" who sincerely
hold opinions that defense contractors like will get funding, and thus end up with a louder voice
than "smart honest people" who hold opinions that are inconvenient for defense contractors. He
is not accusing you of being a shill, he's saying that you likely have a larger impact on defense
policy debates because of the systemic bias in favor of defense policies that make people money.
Comment by IRR Soldier ... on December 3, 2009 - 11:32pm:
132
Nice strawman, but you miss the fact that the large defense contracting firms have diversified
their portfolios into service contracting and, yes, language training, consulting and translation
services. I know that you know this. To pretend otherwise is disingenuous.
Make no mistakes, the corporations you name are quite savvy and know where the gravy will be
in the short, mid and long term. You know damn well that both Boeing and Lockheed are doing a
hell of a lot more than building airplanes. Hell, Lockheed has service contracts throughout the
government providing training services, logistics and HR support.
Again, nice dodge. Now that we have demolished your strawman, please address Yglesias'
question: do you receive any funding from said firms?
Comment by ajay on December 4, 2009 - 6:06am:
Actually, AM, I think the point is not that CNAS, or you, or anyone else is being dishonest - just
that defense companies are going to prefer to support people and organizations which are arguing
(sincerely or otherwise) for an aggressive foreign policy. If CNAS started saying "we should cut
the Navy in half, turn the Army into an all-reserve force and scrap the SSN fleet" I think it's safe
to say that the funding from defence companies might well dry up. So there's an institutional
bias: people who sincerely believe in an aggressive policy will get the money; people who don't
won't.
And while it's true that a COIN-focused army isn't necessarily hardware-heavy, it is one that can,
theoretically, stay in Afghan for years to come - if CNAS didn't believe COIN was possible, the
logical consequence would be that it would be arguing for withdrawal from Afghan (or at least
significant drawdown).

reading -- although not necessarily for the reasons the author intended. … This article is --
surprise! -- an excerpt from one of those insider accounts. Nothing in this article seriously
challenges the administration's version of events, … Alter's "journalism" more closely resembles
court stenography than a public service.
133
...
Comment by Carl Prine on May 17, 2010 - 5:18pm
'Alter's "journalism" more closely resembles court stenography than a public service.*'
Coming from a CNAS voice, that's rich. Perhaps CENTCOM might get him to join a Joint
Strategic Assessment Team or pen books while serving fellowships at the think tank.
That will cure his ethical ailments.
Are you serious?
...
Comment by Visitor [Guy Montag] on May 17, 2010 - 8:17pm
@ Carl Prine: 'Alter's "journalism" more closely resembles court stenography than a public
service.' Coming from a CNAS voice, that's rich. Perhaps CENTCOM might get him to join a
Joint Strategic Assessment Team or pen books while serving fellowships at the think tank"
Nice, subtle poke at AM and the NYT's Thom Shanker [probably referring to Tom Ricks].
"Perhaps CENTCOM might get him to join a Joint Strategic Assessment Team" refers to AM's
field trip last summer ("'This [Afghan War Assessment] was written with about a dozen talented
and good-natured co-authors (and the world's most intense lead author [General McChrystal])
who put up with my smart-assery -- often in enclosed spaces-- for a whole month".)
Does "... or pen books while serving fellowships at the think tank" refer to the NYT's Pentagon
Reporter Thom Shanker? Last fall, Shanker worked on his book while a "writer in residence" at
CNAS. Last year, he wrote a piece clearing McChrystal of all wrongdoing in the aftermath of
Tillman's death. ("May 26, 2009 "Nomination of U.S. Afghan Commander Revives Questions in
Tillman Case") despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. There's some stenography for
you!
Journalist FAIL
...
134
Comment by Abu Muqawama on May 17, 2010 - 9:36pm
… @Carl Prine: Ah, death, taxes, and Carl Prine's self-righteousness... When you can
demonstrate how I have tempered or amended my views based on my employer or its donor
base, Carl, call me. You better have actual hard evidence before you start slinging accusations of
intellectual dishonesty.
...
Comment by GuyMontag425 on May 17, 2010 - 10:55pm
@AM: "You better have actual hard evidence before you start slinging accusations of intellectual
dishonesty."
Really? Do you still stand by your Washington Post book review, "He Didn't Come Home", of
Krakauer's book "Where Men Win Glory"? Or your November 2nd blog post: ―On Martial
Virtue … and Selling Jon Krakauer‘s Crappy New Book‖?
― Krakauer wrote a crappy book, and now he has to market it. And how is he doing that? By
going after Stan McChrystal, who is probably the least culpable guy in Tillman's chain of
command ... who sent a memorandum up through the chain of command at the time of Tillman‘s
death warning his commanders … Stan McChrystal stands out as one of the guys who made
mistakes but ultimately did the right thing. ... Stan McChrystal is one of the finest men I have
ever known, and I hope I have sons who serve under men like him."
McChrystal was hardly "the least culpable guy" in the Tillman case. He personally led the
Army's handling of Tillman's friendly-fire death (false Silver Star, etc.)
It appears that you were either being intellectually dishonest or willfully ignorant in your
exoneration of McChrystal. You want "actual hard evidence"? Watch the Sundance documentary
"The Tillman Story" later this summer. Or take a look at my docs posted at
http://www.feralfirefighter.blogspot.com Or read Mary Tillman's book "Boots on the Ground by
Dusk."
...
Comment by Carl Prine on May 18, 2010 - 7:29am
It's hardly self-righteous for my profession to take a hard look at CNAS, the role it plays in
wooing journalists to the think tank and the echo chamber it has become with its blogs, product
placement in all the media and other trappings of Beltway bluster.
135
As for whether you "have tempered or amended (your) views based on (your) employer or its
donor base," I confess that I can't seem to discover what your views might be. One reads the
debacle of "Triage" and then finds less than a year later something of a mea culpa from you for
the policies it prescribed but not the way they were sold, a process in which you played some
role on the JSAT.
One finds cryptic Twitter messages that seem to call for a putsch of Eikenberry and a weird
WAPO book review of dubious disclosure about obvious biases, but really it all seems to boil
down to a constant defense of a few messianic personalities, -- McChrystal, Petraeus and
Kilcullen especially -- without any real ability to ask harder questions about them and their
policies.
The problem, Andrew, isn't that you're bought or sold. It's that you're callow and becoming
unfortunately more servile to these sacred cows just when previous strategic and operational
assumptions deteriorate in the face of the cold, hard ground truth.
As a long-time fan of yours, I do NOT enjoy watching this. I wish you the best, but I fear you're
harming your own young reputation for reasons I can't fathom.
...
Comment by Abu Muqawama on May 18, 2010 - 10:07am
First off, Carl, it is not my job to defend CNAS as an institution, but let me be clear that I am
honored to work here under Nate and John. Joining the organization after Kurt and Michelle left,
it has been rewarding to watch as our production and profile has only grown over the past 12
months. If you measure us in terms of our production, downloads of publications, media
mentions, influence and web traffic, we've grown by orders of magnitude from 2008 to 2009 and
into 2010.
If you're accusing me of being part of a successful think tank ... uh, guilty as charged? Because
that's what CNAS is: a successful defense policy think tank, and I stand by our work and our
leadership, who were both friends long before they became my bosses.
Second, I appreciate your experiences as a veteran and your informed perspective as a long-time
and exceptionally well-read defense journalist, but in your criticisms you most certainly come off
as self-righteous and acidic. Bottom line: you're a jerk. Whatever you might have useful to say,
it gets lost in your tone. If you really wanted to criticize me in a constructive manner, you might
think about adopting a more humble voice that doesn't feel the need to question my integrity --
intellectual and moral -- at every step along the way and admits that just maybe Carl Prine
136
doesn't have it all figured out either. The tone with which you criticize both me and CNAS
doesn't make me want to listen to you; instead, it reinforces a suspicion that Carl Prine is just as
intellectually arrogant as he would accuse others of being. The whole "I am criticizing you
because I admire you but now I'm going to launch into an ad hominem assault on your work and
your motives" shtick has worn thin.
...
Comment by Carl Prine on May 18, 2010 - 10:27am
I might very well be a jerk, but I'm not callow. Neither, I suspect, is the author of the Newsweek
piece.
And unlike some, I don't arrogate unto myself an expertise later proven to be woefully
inadequate. I ask questions, sometimes uncomfortable ones, but I don't recall very often telling
others what policy they should elect, much less sell in all those media mentions, publications and
whatnot.
Asking hard questions, questioning motives and reviewing assumptions might be skills some
could profitably learn, but this is your forum and I don't wish to eat up your bandwidth
highlighting the obvious. It's poor manners and it solves nothing.
Good luck, Andrew.
...
Comment by GuyMontag425 on May 18, 2010 - 1:08pm
Andrew, you seem to be a bit too defensive about your intellectual and moral "integrity." I
certainly don't believe you've exhibited either with your WAPO book review of "Where Men
Win Glory" or your exoneration of Gen. McChrystal and the Ranger RGT officers for their role
in the whitewash of Pat Tillman's friendly-fire death.
I don't see how you could defend McChrystal's role if you actually bothered to take a look at
Mary Tillman's book "Boots on the Ground by Dusk" or my
http://www.feralfirefighter.blogspot.com You've displayed self-righteous hypocrisy or willful
ignorance on this matter. Perhaps you should reconsider before casting stones in Carl Prine's
direction?
...
Comment by Abu Muqawama on May 18, 2010 - 9:53pm
137
… Carl, congrats on being in the question-asking business, which indeed sounds fun. I too am in
the question-asking business, but I am also expected to suggest answers in the form of policy
prescriptions from time to time. (Seriously, I get paid to do this in the same way you get paid to
write newspaper stories.) Maybe someday I will have a job where I can lob criticisms at the
policy suggestions of others without having to suggest those of my own, but that's not the job I
have right now. My suggestion to you is that instead of pointing out all the ways in which I am
"callow" and compromised, you might yourself seek a forum where you can sketch out
alternative policy recommendations of your own rather than seeking a feeling of superiority in
your criticisms of others. I may disagree with Bernard Fine and his writings (and the tone with
which he approaches those with whom he disagrees), but I certainly respect the way in which he
has not shied away from offering policy alternatives. You, by contrast, at once claim a lack of
sufficient expertise to offer policy advice but do not hesitate to criticize those who do.
Journalist FAIL
I was not among those who criticized the article James Risen wrote about the $1 trillion
mineral find in Afghanistan. … But if James Risen -- one of the nation's leading national
security journalists, to be sure -- seriously thinks those who criticized his reporting are
simply bloggers "jerking off in their pajamas" he could use an extra dose of humility today.
… Just read what a self-important jerk he sounds like when asked to defend his reporting …
What phenomenal arrogance. What a jerk.
...
"he [Risen] could use an extra dose of humility today. ... Just read what a self-important jerk he
sounds like when asked to defend his reporting ... What phenomenal arrogance. What a jerk."
...
through in some of your blog posts (e.g. "On Martial Virtue ... and Selling Jon Krakauer's
Crappy New Book" (11-02-09) which only displayed your ignorance of the matter and/or
complicity in covering for Gen. McChrystal and the Ranger RGT officers involved.
138
If you've got some free time, go see the screening of "The Tillman Story" at the SilverDocs film
festival in Silver Spring MD next Saturday the 26th. Maybe you can share your insights with
Mary Tillman and other members of the Tillman family? If you can't make this showing, the film
will be released on August 20th. Enjoy.
On Bacevich, Part I
September 6, 2010 | Posted by Abu Muqawama - 2:26pm | 90 Comments
… This post, though, is a brief review of Bacevich's new book, Washington Rules: America's
Path to Permanent War. Overall, I enjoyed the book -- though not as much as his earlier one,
The Limits of Power -- and recommend it. Let me divide up my comments, though, into the
good, the bad and the ugly:
… Bacevich complains loudly and frequently in Washington Rules that people who suggest
things such as this are often denounced with the inevitably pejorative term "isolationist", …
If I were him, I would just own the term "isolationist" and let the haters hate. …
… Other times he picks out individual voices and holds them up to be emblematic of larger
trends. … In Bacevich‘s book, counterinsurgency theorists are like the Borg: we all think the
same, and none of us is trying to devise pragmatic operational solutions to disastrous
situations in Iraq and Afghanistan. Rather, we are part of some larger project, trying to
protect a foolish concept of American power and power projection because we are rewarded
with the glittering riches that come with think tank fellowships.
Elsewhere, Bacevich makes assertions without backing them up in facts. … This third fourth
of the book was maddening to read because it struck me as disingenuous.
… For Bacevich, "Washington" is not just the 202 area code or the federal government, but
"think tanks ... interest groups ... lawyers, lobbyists, fixers, former officials ... retired military
officers ... big banks and other financial institutions, defense contractors and major
corporations, television networks ... The New York Times ... the Council on Foreign Relations
and Harvard's Kennedy School of Government."
This is all so similar to one of the mistakes John Mearsheimer and Steven Walt made with
their book about "The Israel Lobby." Had they confined their field of inquiry to the activities
139
and effects of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, they might have written an
interesting and probably dull article. Instead, they constructed a massive conspiracy "lobby"
including everyone from think tanks to professors to -- you guess it! -- the New York Times. I
do not think casting such a wide net helped their cause, and I do not think it helps that of
Bacevich either.
… "A young man in a hurry is nearly uneducable," he writes. This is certainly true. Equally
true is that "better was a poor and wise youth than an old and foolish king who no longer
knew how to take advice." I worry Bacevich has not become more open minded through his
"education" but rather just as close minded as before -- but on another end of the ideological
spectrum.
...
"If I were him, I would just own the term "isolationist" and let the haters hate."
I have to agree with you here. But, I believe the "isolationists" of WWII (e.g. Charles Lindbergh,
Robinson Jeffers, etc) had the better part of the argument but were trashed unfairly (at the time,
and continuing today).
...
"The New York Times" as part of "Washington' conspiracy/lobby?
Sure, last year I had first-hand experience with the NYT Pentagon reporter Thom Shanker
carrying water for the COIN establishment, "exonerating" Gen. McChrystal of all wrong-doing
in the Pat Tillman case (and AM contributed a bit as well with his WP review last year deriding
Krakauer's book as full of "conspiracy" theories).
If your readers want to read more, take a look at "The [Untold] Tillman Story" -- President
Obama & the Bipartisan Whitewash of Gen. Stanley McChrystal at
...
"A young man in a hurry is nearly uneducable"
If the shoe fits, wear it. To further your education, I'd suggest viewing "The Tillman Story"
which is now showing in DC. I'd love to see your review of that film (which your father refuses
140
to watch because he "knows" it's wrong without even watching it!; perhaps the old aren't much
better at being educable? Hopefully not a genetic trait that runs in your family).
On Corruption (And Admitting When You're Wrong)
I know think tank researchers, like scholars in academia, are not supposed to admit when they
have been wrong about something. But as regular readers of this blog know, I am not above
doing that from time to time, in part because the learning process is usually more important than
the conclusion at which I have arrived. …
...
"I know think tank researchers, like scholars in academia, are not supposed to admit when they
have been wrong about something. But as regular readers of this blog know, I am not above
doing that from time to time..."
...
I don't recall a mea culpa on your spirited defense of Gen. McChrystal's role in the cover-up of
Pat Tillman's friendly-fire death last year that concluded with "Stan McChrystal is one of the
finest men I have ever known, and I hope I have sons who serve under men like him."
[http://www.cnas.org/blogs/abumuqawama/2009/11/martial-virtue-and-selling...] (it was good to
see you & CNAS didn't throw McChrystal under the bus last June ... not!)
A viewing of the documentary "The Tillman Story" would be enlightening (it's now showing in
DC). Perhaps you could give your readers the benefit of your wisdom with a review of the film?
And you've even got a chapter devoted to you, "He Who Shall Not Be Fact Checked," in my
latest post, "The [Untold] Tillman Story" -- President Obama and the Bipartisan Whitewash of
Gen. McChrystal, posted at http://www.feralfirefighter.blogspot.com
From the Dept. of Intellectual Dishonesty

141
Riding the bus en route to work this morning, I read Elliott Abrams' op-ed in the Wall Street
Journal on the aborted peace talks between Israel and the Palestinians. …
I have heard from many people I admire and trust that Abrams is one of the most brilliant
people in Washington. But this is the kind of stuff that gives think tank researchers a bad
name. I simply cannot believe that Abrams was not aware of the conclusions of the reports he
cites when he cited them. Not mentioning those conclusions in his op-ed, then, is worse than
disingenuous.
… The point of this post is that unlike most readers of the Wall Street Journal, those paid to
study security issues in the Middle East for a living (and are thus familiar with the sources
Abrams cites) know when an author is selectively sourcing his argument and deliberately
avoiding evidence or conclusions that might weaken his thesis. Again, this is worse than
disingenuous. This is dishonest.
...
Comment by Guy Montag on September 29, 2010 - 12:13pm
"But this is the kind of stuff that gives think tank researchers a bad name. ... those paid to study
security issues in the Middle East for a living ... know when an author is selectively sourcing his
argument and deliberately avoiding evidence or conclusions that might weaken his thesis. Again,
this is worse than disingenuous. This is dishonest."
...
AM is the "pot calling the kettle black". AM could be talking about himself. Last year he did the
same [as he accuses Abrams] with his dishonest review of Jon Krakauer's "Where Men Win
Glory" for the Washington Post and his indefensible defense of Gen. McChrystal's central role in
the Pat Tillman affair.
I've got a chapter devoted to AM, entitled "He Who Shall Not Be Fact-Checked," in my post
"The [Untold] Tillman Story" at http://www.feralfirefighter.blogspot.com If you're interested in
learning more, I'd suggest a viewing of the documentary "The Tillman Story" or Mary Tillman's
book "Boots on the Ground by Dusk" (at blurb.com) or Krakauer's paperback edition of his book
(has 20 more pages on the Army cover-up and more detail on McChrystal's actions).
142
Journalist/Soldier?
Matthew Felling, CBS News – July 2, 2007
In the days after 9/11, Prine gained lot of attention and respect when he investigated the
security status of chemical plants in Chicago, Houston and Pittsburgh – and found them very
vulnerable. He remained committed to the security beat [investigative reporter for the Pittsburgh
Tribune-Review] over the years until 2005, when the former Marine decided to re-enlist in the
National Guard, take what he had learned about security issues, and apply them in Iraq.
In a conversation with Public Eye, Prine indicated putting back on the uniform was a simple
decision. "The military called me and said they were having trouble reaching their recruitment
goals. I felt I had to do my duty, so I joined up with the 1st Battalion of the 110th Infantry of the
Pennsylvania Army National Guard, a unit that hadn't seen combat since the Battle of the Bulge
– and was sent over to Iraq."
Prine is one of a number of journalists out there who can talk of Iraq with the voice of a veteran,
but the eye of a reporter. He talked about his fellow soldiers who complained about media
coverage. "My unit was stationed between Ramadi and Fallujah – a very rough place. The war
was going badly. I'd been blown up four times. And some of the soldiers would ask 'Why are the
reporters all doom and gloom?' I'd have to tell them 'If the reporters were here and saw what we
go through, there's not much good here.'…
Prine sat down with NPR's "On the Media" this past weekend to discuss how his experiences in
the theater of war colored his views on the political debate when he got home. …
―I had less patience for a lot of stories that were being told out there by flacks. … I think once
you've seen an armored vehicle melted and you're pulling out bodies of people that you knew,
you have a lot less patience for people who suggest that a bomb-maker can't possibly fathom a
way to open up a chlorine railcar. It's ludicrous. Absolutely ludicrous.‖
“The only part that I really don't like is when they question my patriotism. That really bothers
me, because the only reason why I was in Iraq was because of my patriotism. I'm hearing this
now more and more. Journalists have lost the war in Iraq. Journalists are helping terrorists. This
personally offends me. It's a disgusting thing to say.‖
When I asked him about the relationship between the media and the military in the 21st century,
Prine said it was like oil and water. "You could be a prostitute, you could be a lawyer, it wouldn't
matter to them. But you couldn't be a journalist … They assumed that any journalist was
reprehensible and inherently untrustworthy."
143
In our conversation, Prine also added that "there are some that'll tell you that the role of a
journalist is to talk truth to power. But as far as I'm concerned, it's just to talk truth. Wherever
that truth leads you, that's where your reporting must go. …
… And it's worth noting as we celebrate Independence Day that the act of pointing out and
reporting upon weaknesses in some national security issues – while such stories may be difficult
to read – is not just a news story, but the first step in making the necessary changes to remedy
those problems. As Prine says, "When did it become traitorous to report that what the
government says they're going to do, they're not doing? That's why you get into journalism.
Otherwise, why buy the paper?"
Tales of our time: How not to enter a valley in Afghanistan

Thomas E. Ricks, The Best Defense -- September 11, 2009 - 4:45 PM
...
ADMIRAL -- September 13, 2009 6:38 AM ET "Too Close for Comfort?"
… Carl Prine posted recently on the blog Abu Muqawama. ―Over the past year, you‘ve [Tom
Ricks] hawked a controversial book on the Iraq war, fired up your own blog and cashed
paychecks from a partisan think tank.‖ (In fact, the center is an independent and nonpartisan
research institution.)
People who work at the Defense Department have also wondered about Ricks‘s public role. ―Is
Tom a reporter, or is Tom an op-ed guy?‖ asks Colonel David Lapan, director of the Defense
Department‘s press office. ―At some point, he became more of an author than a reporter, I
think.‖ Similar questions have been raised on Ricks‘s blog. Ricks pays attention to the criticism,
but he believes it is misguided. ―I‘m trying to provide the honest comment,‖ he says. ―I don‘t
really care how you label it.‖
Take a look at the following comments by Carl Prine in the articles comments section over at
CJR.... "I stand by my commonsensical view that CNAS, a think tank invented in part to fill the
administration of any Democrat elected president with appointees, is a partisan think tank. If you
don't want to believe me, however, I would note the recent exchange between Sen. Jim Webb, D-
Va., and CNAS founder Kurt Campbell, part of the confirmation hearing for a State Department
gig:
144
SEN. WEBB: …There has been a question with respect to the Center for a New
American Security and its relationship with StratAsia, and I'd like to again give you a
chance to clarify that. The question really revolves around the creation of the Center for a
New American Security in '07 being heavily funded by defense contractors in
government contracts."
I think CJR missed a real chance here to ask hard questions about why reporters are wooed to
join these think tanks. How much are they paid? How often do the publications that serve as
their day jobs monitor the policy work they provide? How often do these same publications
disclose to readers that the person doing the reporting might be quoting sources with whom he
(or she) shares a professional relationship?"
...
GTWICKLER -- September 12, 2009 6:39 PM ET Leave it to the experts
Type A personalities may not be the right type to conduct irregular warfare, COIN, FID or CT...
especially when we refuse to stop, listen and learn from the locals.
… quite a few of the more controversial leaders of the recent war years have a background in
Infantry: McChrystal, Nixon, Bailey, Kauzlarich (the Pat Tillman cover-up), Steele and
Sassaman (Iraq). And except for LTC Sassaman, all have spent a great part of their careers in the
Ranger Regiment and were involved in controversies concerning ethical standards.
The Ranger Creed: “I will always endeavor to uphold the prestige, honor and high esprit de
corps of my Ranger Regiment….I will always keep myself mentally alert, physically strong and
morally straight….and under no circumstances will I ever embarrass my country.”
Of course, this might all be a matter of coincidence but I agree with Mr. McCallister that
Unconventional Warfare should be left to the experts: US Army Special Forces and maybe the
occasional tanker…
145
PUBLIC SERVICE ANNOUNCEMENT
On November 23, 2009 Andew Exum announced that he had ―decided to stop daily blogging‖
writing, ―My friend and boss Nate Fick … accurately described me last week [Nov. 16?] as
being someone who enjoys taking a more deliberate approach and digging deep down into an
issue before offering comment. … since starting at CNAS and taking up a more public profile, I
have grown concerned over the reaction to my blogging and public commentary… I may have a
certain talent for writing clever 200-word blog posts and offering sound bites on television, but
… I would much rather do research … than be some public figure sprinting from television
interview to radio spot, twittering in the cab along the way.‖
Reading between the lines, I believe Exum‘s biased review of Jon Krakauer‘s book about Pat
Tillman and some of his off-the-cuff postings caused a bit of embarrassment for CNAS
That his boss and friend Nate Fick (―#42") decided that it was best that he lay low and reduce his
public profile for a while. Besides, for good or ill, he had already done his part to help set
A few months later, Exum appeared to refer back to the events of November 2009: ―In fact, on
multiple occasions over the past year, I have either offended someone or written something
outrageous on this blog, and John and Nate have had my back every time …‖ (AM 4-26-09).
Note: The Washington Post ombudsman‘s column which blamed Exum for his failure to
disclose his conflicts of interest with Gen. McChrystal was published on Nov. 15. It appears that
Fick talked with Exum shortly afterwards (―last week‖ about the 16th).
I liked ―b‖ s succinct response to AM‘s announcement:
―Shorter Exum: Look, I seem to have problems to stay on the officially demanded
message whenever I spontaneously blog about some current development or event. My
boss told me to either quit publishing my real off-message thoughts or to quit the job at
CNAS. Me and my family do prefer the money over publishing my spontaneous opinion.
Therefore I'll quit blogging.‖
...
Andrew Exum‘s ―Writing Hiatus‖ didn‘t last very long. As ―Vizzo‖ wrote, ―AM, I don't see the
difference … This is the third time you've said you were taking a blogging break in the last year
and it only lasted at tops a week and 1/2 to two weeks!‖. However, Exum‘s public and media
appearances did appear to quiet down for a couple of months.
146
Public Service Announcement

November 23, 2009 | Posted by Abu Muqawama - 7:15pm | 177 Comments
Allow me to re-introduce myself: My name is Andrew Exum, and I have edited and authored
the "Abu Muqawama" blog since February 2007. After much deliberation and consultation, I
have decided to stop daily blogging. I owe it to the readership to explain both why and also how
it will affect this site.
First off, I have steadily grown dissatisfied with blogging as a medium since returning fulltime in
December of last year. … My friend and boss Nate Fick, meanwhile, accurately described me
last week as being someone who enjoys taking a more deliberate approach and digging deep
down into an issue before offering comment. … Blogging, like any medium, is one you get
better at with practice. As I have become a better blogger, my long-form writing skills have
atrophied.
Second, since starting at CNAS and taking up a more public profile, I have grown concerned
over the reaction to my blogging and public commentary. A few months ago, Lady Muqawama,
after reading one of the comments threads here, asked me, half joking and half serious, "Are you
going to be assassinated?" … my girlfriend and my mother read all the comments on this site,
and they also read posts on the internet like this one.
Sorry, but this is simply no longer worth it. I may have a certain talent for writing clever 200-
word blog posts and offering sound bites on television, but I enjoy neither doing so nor the
effects of doing so. In my heart, I would much rather do research, read more books, play more
rugby and take on a more active role in my community than be some public figure sprinting from
television interview to radio spot, twittering in the cab along the way.
… This blog will remain an active website hosted by CNAS … Second, I aim to use this blog in
a different way than I have so far done. I look to friends like Marc Lynch and Reidar Visser
and admire the way they use their blogs to highlight ongoing academic and policy research. I aim
to do the same, which means you can expect me to post far less often but in a more considered
way.
I want to thank the loyal readership for all its support. I treasure the community of people who
read this blog, offer non-crazed commentary, and have reached out to become friends and
drinking partners. I appreciate your continued support and hope you stay in touch.
...
147
Comment by b on November 24, 2009 - 5:00am
Shorter Exum:
Look, I seem to have problems to stay on the officially demanded message whenever I
spontaneously blog about some current development or event. My boss told me to either quit
publishing my real off-message thoughts or to quit the job at CNAS. Me and my family do
prefer the money over publishing my spontaneous opinion. Therefore I'll quit blogging.
Censored Comment by GUY MONTAG (attempted posting about November 23, 2009
about 11:30 pm. Blocked from commenting even under “Visitor”):
I believe you‘ve neglected to tell your readers the principle reason for your decision to stop
blogging and to cut out your television appearances.
Reading between the lines, I believe your biased review of Jon Krakauer‘s book about Pat
Tillman and some of your off-the-cuff postings have caused a bit of embarrassment for CNAS.
That your boss and friend Nate Fick (―#42") decided that it was best that you lay low, reduce
your public profile. Besides, for good or ill, you‘ve already done your part to help set
In particular, the Washington Post‘s Ombudsman, Andrew Alexander, recently wrote in a

column ―Blame to Spare on a Book Review‖ (11-15-09):

wrote a "willfully deceptive" review that protected him. … I also think Exum deserves
blame. The contract language is explicit. Despite media coverage of his role in
Afghanistan, the contract puts the onus on the reviewer to notify The Post if there is an
"appearance of a conflict of interest."
As I pointed out previously in my lengthy comments to your November 2nd post, ―On Martial
Virtue ... and Selling Jon Krakauer's Crappy New Book‖ (and your November 9th Post, ―He
Who Shall Not Be Fact Checked‖) you‘ve got more than the ―appearance of a conflict of
interest‖ when it comes to General McChrystal. …
Why am I picking on you? Well, I‘ve got no personal beef with you (I enjoyed reading your
book, your account of Ranger School, and you sound like you were once a ―squared away‖ LT).
But, I‘ve obviously taken the Pat Tillman story to heart. Your biased review of Krakauer‘s book
covering General McChrystal's ass didn‘t exactly endear yourself to me! You just happened to
148
be the last in the bipartisan line of Washington figures who have betrayed the Pat Tillman and
his family. …
Well, it‘s finally quieted down at my fire station, allowing me to finish my comment. I‘ve tried
to keep my commentary on the ―non-crazed‖ side. Just stop writing any more garbage about Pat
Tillman and General McChrystal. Best of luck with your post-blog life.
...
Comment by Bateman on November 25, 2009 - 11:13am
… As somebody who, periodically, imbibes immoderate amounts with Ex, and as a writer, I'll
add a postscript.
Writing is like painting. Yea, I know, sounds lame. But bear with me. A person who works in
watercolor, another who works in acrylics, and a third who uses oils, are all called "painters." …
These differences may seem remote from Exum's point, but as an author (and a painter, however
lame) I would note for everyone that Exum is right about his inner concerns about writing.
Skills atrophy. We all know that. My marksmanship fades with every month I spend quartered
safe. My previously acute sense of paranoia (useful in Baghdad) withers here in DC. (Well,
mostly. I live in SE. That keeps some parts sharp.) So too does the ability to write in different
formats. Exum, exceedingly mature for his age despite the fact that he owes me a bottle of good
scotch, recognized that fact and is working to rectify the issue. We should be thankful.
Not tomorrow, nor even five or ten years from now, but in decades to come all of us who have
interacted with him will be thankful that he took this route towards deeper thought. Particularly
since I expect that come 2032, when President Fick announces his Cabinet, Andrew Exum will
be filling one of those chairs.
...
Catching Up
December 28, 2009 | Posted by Abu Muqawama - 7:06pm | 15 Comments
I have not been posting much recently, enjoying my retirement from daily blogging, …
...
149
Abu Muqawama on Twitter

February 5, 2010 | Posted by Abu Muqawama - 2:58pm | 18 Comments
Now that I am no longer blogging on a daily basis, the best way to see what has caught my
eye in a given day is by following this blog's Twitter feed. I know it can be an annoying bit
of technology (not to mention a wee presumptuous to think you would want to read what I
read), but it's a convenient way for me to link to articles and books of note.
...
Why We Can't Have Pretty Things

March 15, 2010 | Posted by Abu Muqawama - 10:05am | 51 Comments
Ugh. This is a sad day for this blog. As many of you know, I am a bit of a fundamentalist
when it comes to free speech. I have always supported an open comments policy on the
grounds that it is better for ugly and offensive language to be exposed to the light of day than
to employ some bound-to-be-arbitrary standard for moderating comments. And that policy
worked for over three years. But some of my co-workers have recently complained, with
justification, about the comments that were on this post, resulting in us deleting a few
comments. Sadly, the comments threads on this blog have featured a lot of offensive,
nonsensical language recently. What the heck is wrong with some of you people?
...
Writing Hiatus
Now that I have completed my writing assignments for CNAS this spring, it's back to
working on my dissertation. So expect blogging to be very light for a while. Thanks.
...
Comment by Visitor on May 18, 2010 - 10:58am
AM, I don't see the difference.
Comment by Vizzo on May 18, 2010 - 4:05pm
You really think that eh AM? Personally I think you, as well as many others in here are suffering
from IAD. This is the third time you've said you were taking a blogging break in the last year
and it only lasted at tops a week and 1/2 to two weeks! …
150
Heading into Memorial Day weekend of 2010, Andrew Exum wrote,
―we should give thanks not only for those who have fallen on the field of honor but for all the
simply amazing young men and women who continue to volunteer to serve in and officer our
armed forces. They continue to be the very best of us, and just as it was an honor to have
walked alongside them for a few years in an otherwise misspent youth ... Semper Fidelis …‖
...
*** “field of honor” “Where Men Win Glory” quote from inside
**** Caroline
*** add JK WSJ meant nothing
**** Richard he’s fucking dead (and add to end of summary after memorial plaque)
I responded to AM‘s post with,
―Amen. I'll host a Guinness to the memory of Pat Tillman, who displayed more integrity
with his life, than his entire chain-of-command (Democrats & Republicans) ever did with
the way they've treated him and his family by lying about his friendly-fire death. So
much for Army "values" and the Marine‘s Semper Fidelis!‖
Last year, I wasn't impressed with the whitewash of Gen. McChrystal‘s central role in the
Army‘s cover-up of Pat Tillman‘s friendly-fire death by President Obama, the
Democratic Senate (especially Senator James Webb, a highly decorated Vietnam Marine
officer), and those at CNAS who played a role (especially AM and the ―writer in
residence‖ NYT reporter Thom Shanker).
...
On November 11, 2010 Andrew Exum posted a series of war poems to commemorate Veteran’s
Day. He commented ―One could probably title this one ["A Mujahid's Wish From His Mother"]
"Dulce et decorum est pro patria et religione mori."
I responded by writing that ―I doubt that Pat Tillman would think that "Dulce et decorum est pro
patria et religione mori" applies to his death. At least not if he knew how his family has been
151
betrayed by his country's leadership. And, recalling his words to a fellow Ranger while watching
the fireworks in Iraq in 2003 were, ‗This war is so ----ing illegal!‘
To commemorate Pat Tillman‘s Birthday (November 6 just a few days Veteran‘s Day) I also
posted a William Butler Yeats poem, along with quotes from Senator James Webb:
PATRICK TILLMAN
November 6, 1976 – April 22, 2004

...
What Was Lost


...
.
one man while flight could make another man king. … I knew it was fruitless at this
point but still I felt a call for justice, an anger that life does not always reward the right
intentions, that the cycles of days and years and seasons lull us into thinking that in all
things there will be second chances, and even thirds, when in some things we have only
one. And sometimes we never know we had that single chance until it disappears.‖
152
-- Senator James Webb

...
**** Kevin words
153
Jon Krakauer’s Inside Story of Pat Tillman
Jeffery A. Trachtenberg, Wall Street Journal – September 11, 2009
Mr. Krakauer, who lives in Boulder, Colo., was interviewed by telephone.
In his fifth book, "Where Men Win Glory," journalist Jon Krakauer explains why,
broadening Mr. Tillman's story by weaving in an account of America's deepening
involvement with Iraq, Pakistan and Afghanistan. He also details how Mr. Tillman was cut
down by friendly fire in Afghanistan on April 22, 2004, and examines the disturbing
aftermath. …
WSJ: You end the book with a gloomy visit to Afghanistan in early 2007. What did Mr. Tillman's
sacrifice mean?
―It didn't mean anything. It speaks to the mythology of war and how we glorify it for our
national interests. There is nothing glamorous or romantic about war. It's mostly about
random pointless death and misery. And that's what his death tells us. It reminds me that the
good aren't rewarded, there's no such thing as karma. Maybe it says something about the
dangers of any sort of idealism that isn't tempered by pragmatism or experience.‖
Quote of the Day

"The Iliad is ever mindful that war is about men killing or men killed. In the entire epic, no
warrior, whether hero or obscure man of the ranks, dies happily or well. No reward awaits
the soldier's valor; no heaven will receive him. The Iliad's words and phrases for the process
of death make clear that this is something baneful: dark night covers the dying warrior,
hateful darkness claims him; he is robbed of sweet life, his soul goes down to Hades
bewailing its fate. Again and again, relentlessly, the Iliad hammers this fact: the death of any
warrior is tragic and full of horror. Even in war, death is regrettable."
-- Caroline Alexander, The War That Killed Achilles
154
2nd Lt. Janell Peske, USMC

On 11 September 2001, as I was at Fort Drum, New York, trying to get my light infantry
platoon ready to deploy to war, a young girl in southern California vowed to her mother that
she would one day "serve her country" in the military. I got to know both mother and
daughter after leaving the U.S. Army, and I am as proud as I could possibly be to
congratulate that "young girl", Janell Peske, on her graduation from the U.S. Naval Academy
today. …
I remember when I was commissioned, 10 years ago this week at the Union Club of
Philadelphia … As we head into Memorial Day weekend, we should give thanks not only for
those who have fallen on the field of honor but for all the simply amazing young men and
women who continue to volunteer to serve in and officer our armed forces. They continue to
be the very best of us, and just as it was an honor to have walked alongside them for a few
years in an otherwise misspent youth, I am deeply humbled by their sense of duty and
sacrifice as well as the seriousness with which they take the most important job you could
ever give to a 21-year old.
Semper Fidelis, 2nd. Lt. Peske. And thank you -- and all the other newly commissioned
officers out there -- for your service.
...
Comment by GuyMontag on May 28, 2010 - 9:56pm
...
...
155
"A Mujahid's Wish From His Mother"

November 11, 2010 | Posted by Abu Muqawama - 9:28am | 18 Comments
And here we have a poem written by a young Talib, translated and provided by our friends Alex
Strick Van Linschoten and Felix Kuehn, who will publish a book of Taliban poetry next year.
...
(AM: One could probably title this one "Dulce et decorum est pro patria et religione mori." One
similarly wonders whether Abu Fazl will feel about this war, at its conclusion, as Wilfred Owen
felt about his at his death.)
...
Comment by Guy Montag on November 11, 2010 - 3:14pm
I doubt that Pat Tillman would think that "Dulce et decorum est pro patria et religione mori"
applies to his death. At least not if he knew how his family has been betrayed by his country's
leadership. And, recalling his words to a fellow Ranger while watching the fireworks in Iraq in
2003 were, "This war is so ----ing illegal!"
The following quotes were excerpted from p. 136 – 138 of "The [Untold] Tillman Story" at
http://www.feralfirefighter.blogspot.com Senator James Webb (D-VA) was at the center of the
Senate's role in continuing the Army & Bush administrations's cover-up of Pat Tillman's
friendly-fire death to protect Gen. Stanley McChrystal from scrutiny of his key role in the
Army's cover-up of Pat Tillman's friendly-fire death.
What Was Lost

...
-- Senator James Webb, ―A Sense of Honor‖ (1981)
156
...
one man while flight could make another man king.‖
―I knew it was fruitless at this point but still I felt a call for justice, an anger that life does
not always reward the right intentions, that the cycles of days and years and seasons lull
us into thinking that in all things there will be second chances, and even thirds, when in
some things we have only one. And sometimes we never know we had that single chance
until it disappears.‖
―‘Waray, waray.‘ You remember, even after all these years! Yes, that is the way of our
people. To the last drop of blood. To the last breath of air. To the last beating of the heart.
That is how we fight. That is how we pray. That is how we love.‖
-- Senator James Webb ―The Emperor‘s General‖ (1999)
...
-- Senator James Webb ―A Country Such As This‖ (1981)
...
PATRICK TILLMAN
November 6, 1976 – April 22, 2004

-- New Alamaden Bulmore Park Memorial
157
“L’AFFAIR ROLLING STAN”
On May 17, 2009 Andrew Exum wrote ―… I'm encouraged the president apparently likes Stan
McChrystal …‖ But, just a month later, President Obama fired Gen. McChrystal.
Early on June 22, 2009 Micheal Hasting‘s Rolling Stone article, ―The Runaway General‖
appeared on the blogosphere. Andrew Exum‘s initial reaction was ―this is hardly MacArthur-
Truman territory, but POTUS has every right to be furious, and there are good arguments both
for and against the sack … I really admire Stan McChrystal, but he has put his superiors in an
incredibly difficult situation.‖
Early in the morning (9 am) Exum expressed his admiration for Gen. McChrystal and, ―weighing
the risks,‖ advocated for retaining him for the good of the Afghan War effort:
―I very much admire Stan McChrystal and have looked up to him since my time in the
Rangers when I fought in Afghanistan under his command. I know the man personally
and worked with him last summer … And so there may be a limit to how objective I can
really be, … I'm going to try and soberly analyze these risks without letting my
admiration for McChrystal get in the way.‖
―...you are risking mission failure by replacing the commander … You are in effect
Afghanistan. …. the president has every right to say that while Gen. McChrystal's
statements to Rolling Stone were shockingly inappropriate, there is a greater good here,
and that greater good is stabilizing Afghanistan. … My own prediction is that Gen.
McChrystal will be retained. …. I suspect the president will not replace the man he has
put in charge of executing that strategy with just 12 months to go before we begin a
withdrawal. …‖
However, Exum‘s opinion on ‖ l‘Affair Rolling Stan‖ appeared to shift during the course of the
day. By mid-afternoon (3 pm), as it became clear consensus had formed that McChrystal‘s firing
wouldn‘t be opposed by the Washington Defense establishment, Exum wrote:
―Something very, very positive happened today in Washington, DC. Senior Republican
legislators, to include Sen. John McCain … have made clear that the president is well
within his rights to fire Gen. McChrystal … Those who love our constitutional
democracy should exhale, because I for one was really afraid this was going to turn into a
158
partisan catfight … , with those on the Left screaming for the president to fire
McChrystal and those on the Right laying the blame at the feet of the president.‖
...
On June 23, 2009 Gen. McChrystal returned to Washington to meet with President Obama.
Shortly afterwards, President Obama announced that he had fired Gen. McChrystal and replaced
him with Gen. Petreaus (demoted from command of CENTCOM). The next day, Andrew Exum
praised the President‘s actions,
―I think the president acted very wisely today. I think he was well within his rights to fire
Gen. Stan McChrystal, a friend and a man for whom I have great admiration, and that it
was correct for healthy civil-military relations that he did so. … The president acted with
confidence and wisdom. And we have a very good general en route to Kabul. All that is
left, then, is to thank Gen. Stan McChrystal for his service. It is a pity that a man who has
given so much to his nation ends his career in such ignominious fashion.‖
...
―Abu Sharmouta‖ wrote, ―Exum slowly began to throw McChrystal under the bus over the past
few days. Might as well stick with the winning horse.‖ And ―IRR‖ chimed in,
―That's It? That's all you have to say about the forced retirement of a remarkable officer?
Your mentor? … I'm really disappointed to see how quickly you can just "turn the page"
on someone …This is all the reflection you have on this? Seriously. Hell, I've never even
met the man, but I can pen a send off post with more emotion and feeling. . A few
boilerplate lines thanking him for his service. Big. F--king. Deal.‖
Maria-Centric wrote:
―Wow, that's a low blow. Et tu, Exum? … So that you can cover your own ass with the
Obama administration? I am really taken back by your lack of courage and gratitude. …
It is one thing to be wrong in analysis. It is quite another to lack character. … And
mocking a man while he is down, well, that's just being a jerk on top of everything else.‖
Guy Montag’s Response to “L’Affair Rolling Stan”:
159
Petreaus, Mullen, etc. wanted McChrystal to be the savior of the Afghan war. In doing so,
President Obama overlooked McChrystal's involvement in torture at Camp Nama and
McChrystal's central role in the cover-up of Tillman's death and the fabrication of his Silver Star.
I've literally just posted [6-23-10] "The Emperor's General" -- President Barack Obama and the
Whitewash of General Stanley McChrystal‘s Role in the Cover-Up of Pat Tillman‘s Friendly-
Fire Death. …
Obviously, I'm not a big fan of McChrystal. But, by all accounts he's been an excellent SF
soldier. Maybe he's the best hope for Afghanistan. I don't know enough to comment on whether
the Pretreaus and CNAS‘s COIN strategy makes sense. But, McChrystal pissed me off with his
interest of the war effort". But instead of seeing McChrystal fired over insubordination, I'd
rather see those involved in the Tillman cover-up to suffer some consequences. At least public
embarrassment …
...
station tonight). Why all the uproar over the "Rolling Stone" article? McChrystal's men were
just trash-talking a bit (admittedly not the smartest thing to do on the record). In particular, the
Biden remark was totally taken out of context; it was a friggin joke!
Mary, in her book Boots on the Ground by Dusk. McChrystal got away with it, she added,
done …‖
...
I agree with the ―Visitor‖ who wrote, “My gut feeling tells me, there was something deeper
going on ... The RS article being the fulcrum. In the end, I'm sure there will be some cable traffic
or e-mails that will probably show (in 20 years) what was really going on‖ (see ―Throwing My
Shoe at Bob Woodward … Not‖ for that discussion).
160

issues.
… I'm encouraged the president apparently likes Stan McChrystal, because honestly, if a
Democrat can't get along with Gen. McChrystal, there's not much hope he can get along with any
U.S. general. But below the president I sense this paranoia in the administration's staff that the
military is out to get them.
… I think the president has restored some much-needed balance between the civilians and the
officer corps on national security decision-making in the past year. But the U.S. military's officer
corps and the administration are both going to have to do a lot more work to repair civil-
military relations back to where they need to be. And Jonathan Alter ... well, I'm sure his book
will be a best-seller
...
―I'm encouraged the president apparently likes Stan McChrystal …‖ Well, apparently Exum
wasn‘t well-informed on how much he was liked; certainly not enough to prevent his firing just a
month later. Interestingly, Bob Woodward wrote that on May 6th & 11th, McChrystal had
received ―strike one‖ and ―strike two‖ during high-level meetings with the President about his
progress (or lack thereof) with ―clear and hold‖ in Afghanistan.
Rolling Stone
No, I have not read the Rolling Stone article on Gen. McChrystal. Yes, I was interviewed for
it, but I don't think I said anything of consequence. …Now we have a huge distraction for
everyone involved: Folks on the left are going to be screaming for POTUS to sack
McChrystal for insubordination, and folks from the right are going to seize on this as
evidence the Obama Administration is screwing up the war and not supporting his generals.
Meanwhile, in Kabul, you have a commander dealing with a mess. … This is not good. This
is just a terrible distraction, and I feel sorry that POTUS is going to have to deal with this.
161
UPDATE: I have now read the article, and Talledega Nights references aside, it is not good.
Hastings obviously thinks counterinsurgency is a scam, and the real thrust of the article is not
so much anti-McChrystal but anti-COIN. …
I trust POTUS is going to do a cost-benefit analysis there and arrive at a decision. This is
hardly MacArthur-Truman territory, but POTUS has every right to be furious, and there are
good arguments both for and against the sack … I've said it once, though, and will say it
again: he has every right to be furious that McChrystal put him in this situation in the first
place. I really admire Stan McChrystal, but he has put his superiors in an incredibly difficult
situation.
...
Comment by Marja-centric on June 22, 2010 - 8:56am
Wow, that's a low blow. Et tu, Exum?
Gen. McCrystal took you into his inner circle. He gave you stature by giving you a seat at the
table. He took you seriously and in effect launched your career. And you don't have a single nice
thing to say about him in your post? Not the faintest of a defense? So that you can cover your
own ass with the Obama administration?
I am really taken back by your lack of courage and gratitude.
Firing McChrystal: Weighing the Risks
I have been struck by the degree to which a lot of smart friends are in disagreement about
what should be done about l'Affair Rolling Stan. … The purpose of this post is to outline the
risks of dismissing Gen. McChrystal as the commander of ISAF in response to the affair.
This is an uncomfortable post to write. I very much admire Stan McChrystal and have
looked up to him since my time in the Rangers when I fought in Afghanistan under his
command. I know the man personally and worked with him last summer in an effort to
analyze the war in Afghanistan and NATO/ISAF operations there. And so there may be a
limit to how objective I can really be, but I'm a defense policy analyst, so I'm going to try and
soberly analyze these risks without letting my admiration for McChrystal get in the way. I'll
let you be the judge as to how well I succeed here.
162
… If you think the strategy in Afghanistan is the correct one, then, you are risking mission
failure by replacing the commander and his staff at this stage in the conflict. You are in effect
Afghanistan.
… In conclusion, I believe there are grounds for dismissal or other discipline under Article
88 of the UCMJ. But I also believe the president has every right to say that while Gen.
McChrystal's statements to Rolling Stone were shockingly inappropriate, there is a greater
good here, and that greater good is stabilizing Afghanistan.
… My own prediction is that Gen. McChrystal will be retained. As much as critics of

counterinsurgency like to blame Gen. McChrystal (and nefarious think-tankers, of course) for
the current strategy, the reality is that the civilian decision-makers in the Obama
Administration conducted two high-level reviews in 2009 and twice arrived at a national
strategy focused on conducting counterinsurgency operations in Afghanistan. I suspect the
president will not replace the man he has put in charge of executing that strategy with just 12
months to go before we begin a withdrawal. …
...
Petreaus, Mullen, etc. wanted McChrystal as the savior of the Afghan war. In doing so, President
Obama ignored McChrystal's involvement in torture at Camp Nama and McChrystal's central
role in the cover-up of Tillman's death and the fabrication of his Silver Star.
I've literally just posted "The Emperor's General" -- President Barack Obama and the Whitewash
of General Stanley McChrystal‘s Role in the Cover-Up of Pat Tillman‘s Friendly-Fire Death.
This document discusses the events surrounding McChrystal's nomination and promotion last
year and the bi-partisan cover-up to protect McChrystal. There's also quite a bit of McChrystal
biographical info pulled together there.
Obviously, I'm not a big fan of McChrystal. By all accounts he's been an excellent SF soldier.
Maybe he's the best hope for Afghanistan. I don't know enough to comment on whether the
Pretreaus and CNAS‘s COIN strategy makes sense. But, McChrystal pissed me off with his
interest of the war effort".
163
But instead of seeing McChrystal fired over insubordination, I'd rather see those involved in the
Tillman cover-up to suffer some consequences. At least public embarassment. e.g. President
Obama, Congressman Waxman, Senator Webb, Senator Levin, Senator McCain, Thom Shanker,
etc.
Three Options for the President
Something very, very positive happened today in Washington, DC. Senior Republican
legislators, to include Sen. John McCain, and Bush Administration national security
specialists, to include Peter Feaver and Eliot Cohen (both careful scholars of
counterinsurgency and civil-military relations, I might add), have made clear that the
president is well within his rights to fire Gen. McChrystal for comments made in a Rolling
Stone article by Michael Hastings. Those who love our constitutional democracy should
exhale, because I for one was really afraid this was going to turn into a partisan catfight, with
those on the Left screaming for the president to fire McChrystal and those on the Right
laying the blame at the feet of the president.
I am at a loss, though, as to what the best option for the president is. As I have made clear, I
believe any course of action carries risk. The purpose of this post is to share three options for
the president that, I believe, minimize those risks. …
...
station tonight).
Why all the uproar over the "Rolling Stone" article? McChrystal's men were just trash-talking a
bit (admittably not the smartest thing to do on the record). In particular, the Biden remark was
totally taken out of context; it was a friggin joke!
Mary, in her book "Boots on the Ground by Dusk". McChrystal got away with it, she added,
164
done …‖
Exactly. Over the past year I've documented the bi-partisan actions to protect General
McChrystal, including those taken by the Democratic Congress and President Obama (especially
Senator Webb and Congressman Waxman) at http://www.feralfirefighter.blogspot.com
Coincidentally, this morning I happened to finish my latest piece, "The Emperor's General" --
President Obama and the Whitewash of General McChrystal's Role in the Cover-up of Pat
Tillman's Friendly-Fire Death", just before I first heard of the Rolling Stone blow-up here at AM.
...
Comment by Visitor on June 23, 2010 - 1:52pm
I think AM chose not to post his gut feeling on what was most likely going to happen
[McChrystal fired, and Petreaus demoted to take his place]. He's too close to those involved and
wanted to sound objective. This was kinda a no-brainer.
My gut feeling tells me, there was something deeper going on... The RS article being the
fulcrum. In the end, I'm sure there will be some cable traffic or e-mails that will probably show
(in 20 years) what was really going on. You'll have to wait till then... Let the suspense build
some more and your kids will probably get a good laugh in college, from the drama that occurred
today.
I don't think Petraeus will be in charge for more than a year, so don't be surprised if Gen. Mattis
or some other Marine...Centcom #2 gets tapped on the shoulder. We will have to wait and see....
McChrystal Out, Petraeus In
I arrived in Vail, Colorado this afternoon to digest the news from Washington -- which I did
during a trail run up Riva Ridge, getting in touch with my 10th Mountain Division forefathers. I
165
think the president acted very wisely today. I think he was well within his rights to fire Gen. Stan
McChrystal, a friend and a man for whom I have great admiration, and that it was correct for
healthy civil-military relations that he did so. He did so in a very classy way, too, noting Gen.
McChrystal's long record of service and the role he has played since 2001 as both commander in
Afghanistan and in command of the Joint Special Operations Command. (I believe he will
someday get the credit he deserves for his service at the helm of JSOC.)
And he did so in a way that minimized many of the risks I wrote about yesterday by replacing
Gen. McChrystal with Gen. Petraeus. Those who hoped this episode would lead to a wider
examination of U.S. and allied strategy in Afghanistan will be disappointed. But it will be
interesting to see how Gen. Petraeus responds to the day-to-day challenges of Afghanistan and
what shifts he recommends to both President Obama and President Karzai.
These have been a remarkable but tough few days. We have reason to hope, though, going
forward. The president acted with confidence and wisdom. And we have a very good general en
route to Kabul. All that is left, then, is to thank Gen. Stan McChrystal for his service. It is a pity
that a man who has given so much to his nation ends his career in such ignominious fashion.
...
Comment by IRR Soldier... on June 24, 2010 - 6:52am
That's It?
That's all you have to say about the forced retirement of a remarkable officer? Your mentor? The
man who brought you into his inner circle to provide input and counsel?
I'm really disappointed to see how quickly you can just "turn the page" on someone who had so
much faith in you and your potential. This is all the reflection you have on this? Seriously. Hell,
I've never even met the man, but I can pen a send off post with more emotion and feeling.
As I've said elsewhere, I was agnostic about keeping GEN McChrystal in Afghanistan. But his
forced retirement from the Army is a devastating blow to our officer corps. Take a good, hard,
look at our current roster of Four Stars. This loss is incalculable for the Army when its bench of
inspirational senior leaders is really, really thin.
I'm so sorry that you've become beholden to an administration and its appointees. From my
vantage, the firing of GEN McChrystal was anything but "classy". A few boilerplate lines
thanking him for his service. Big. F--king. Deal.
166
McChrystal as Cantona
I challenged the folks who follow my Twitter feed to come up with a proper sports analogy for
Stan McChrystal. We were trying to think of a brilliant athlete who had a meltdown. @alexlobov
won, by a country mile, with Eric Cantona. Cantona, the brilliant Frenchman who played for
Manchester United, lost it in 1995, ran into the stands and -- I am not joking -- karate-kicked a
fan in the face and was banned for nine months and lost the captaincy of the French national
team. (Yeah, they have a history of craziness.)
He then followed that up with the greatest press conference in the history of press conferences.
Ron Artest had nothing on Le Roi. Cantona went on to score some wonder goals and even beat
the Devil, so perhaps there is hope for McChrystal after his humiliating exit from Afghanistan.
Anyway, happy World Cup, everybody.
...
Comment by Marja-centric on June 24, 2010 - 10:51am
Just when I thought you couldn't get ever more flippant, you go ahead and surprise me. Is this
analogy really appropriate, at this time? Or was it that your sophomoric, giggly ego couldn't help
itself?
What you don't realize, Mr. Exum, is that McCrystal's eclipse is also your own. Notwithstanding
your ignoble and desperate kiss up to the Obama administration during this incident, you will
always be counted as a McCrystal guy, since it was he who propelled you to prominence. He
took you seriously. I guess that was another of his errors in judgement.
It is one thing to be wrong in analysis. It is quite another to lack character. You are the
equivalent of a cavalryman breaking ranks and galloping for the hills, hoping for amnesty. And
mocking a man while he is down, well, that's just being a jerk on top of everything else.
...
**** add sympathy for the devil. Lack of loyalty, throw under the bus, “birth my babies”
167
Beers on the Table: Journalists and the Public Figures They Cover
Now that Gen. McChrystal is gone and consensus has formed that President Obama was well
within his rights to have fired him, it's worth going back and looking anew at the Rolling Stone
piece that got him fired.
…others seized on a comment in the Politico that this would likely not have happened had
Michael Hastings, the Rolling Stone reporter, not been a free-lance. The logic is that a reporter
from the New York Times or the Washington Post would have been more servile to the people
they cover because they do not want to burn their sources. After enduring some members of the
White House press corps who do, frankly, seem to exchange favorable coverage of the
administration for access, I can understand their complaint.
…
...
Comment by abu sharmouta on June 25, 2010 - 1:49pm
It was funny to watch how Exum slowly began to throw McChrystal under the bus over the past
few days. Might as well stick with the winning horse. Playing politics through blogs is truly an
art, despite the fact that it is often uncomfortable to watch. …
Sunday McChrystal Round-Up, and a Question for the Readership
Today's newspapers have some good thoughts on the dismissal of Gen. McChrystal, some
predictable drivel on the dismissal, and a touching tribute written by one of Gen. McChrystal's
Afghan colleagues.
… One thing that I will add to Andrew Bacevich's op-ed, though, is that he may have missed a
trick: yes, civil-military relations are strained when you ask an officer corps to fight as long as it
has, but as I was discussing with a friend the other day, officers within the special operations
community might be more likely than others to treat their civilian leaders with contempt. …
168
On September 19, 2009 Roy Exum (retired sportswriter, columnist for chatthanoogan.com, and
father of Andrew) wrote, ―When I heard a new book [Where Men Win Glory] would be released
this week, I preordered a couple of copies … It turns out that Andrew had already read the book.
As a matter of fact, his review of it appeared in last Sunday's editions [9-13-09] of the
Washington Post …‖
Responding to Roy‘s column, I wrote: ―Andrew Exum dismissed Krakauer‘s assertion that
there was a ―conspiracy‖ by the Army to cover-up Tillman‘s fratricide … however, the very first
sentence of Exum‘s review actually provided evidence of just such a ‗conspiracy‘ … Why is
Andrew Exum so dismissive of any ―conspiracy‖? I would argue that he is protecting General
McChrystal … Clearly, despite Exum‘s background as an Army Ranger officer in Afghanistan,
he was a poor choice of reviewer since he has a ‗dog in the fight.‘‖
...
On July 13, 2010 Roy Exum wrote, ―Next month there will debut a film entitled The Tillman
Story. It will depict the life and death of the greatest hero I have known in my time … yet I will
refuse to watch it. ... Do not go watch The Tillman Story. I will never watch it but, for the life of
me, I can tell you it is false … I believe The Tillman Story is not about the real truth.‖
I sent Roy Exum an email lambasting him, ―Really? You haven‘t watched it, but ‗for the life of
me‘ you can tell me it is false?‘:
―… the Tillman family is very happy with the film by the way. In fact, the movie is just
as much about the Tillman family and their battle for the truth as about Pat Tillman.
Which side are you on? With the Tillman family of ―the greatest hero I have ever
known‖ or those who have dishonored his legacy with lies?‖
―It‘s rather ironic your son spoke of watching Predator footage that night of Tillman‘s
firefight when he was on the Ranger QRF at Bagram. … that footage disappeared, the
Army just can‘t find it. Or find the original 15-6 investigation report. Or figure out who
altered the Silver Star witness statements to remove all mention of friendly-fire … Your
son Andrew is either an ignorant fool on this subject, or a willing propaganda tool.‖
Perhaps Andrew Exum‘s approach to ―the epistemological questions I'm always asking myself --
"How do I know what I 'know'?" was inherited from his father? (e.g. ―… I will never watch it,
but, for the life of me, I can tell you it is false. … I believe The Tillman Story is not about the real
truth‖).
169
Roy Exum: A Special Book Review
Roy Exum -- September 19, 2009 Chatthanoogan.com
When I heard a new book would be released this week, I preordered a couple of copies, hoping
to send one of the first to this guy I know who happens to be an expert on Pat Tillman's death as
a soldier. I should have known better.
The book, written by one of my favorite authors - Jon Krakauer - is titled, "When Men Win
Glory," and the guy I wanted to send it to knows something about that, too. Another one of my
favorite authors is Andrew Exum, who it seems like only a few years ago was playing football on
Friday nights at McCallie. Today he is a Fellow at The Center for a New American Security in
Washington.
It turns out that Andrew [Exum, his son] had already read the book. As a matter of fact, his
review of it appeared in last Sunday's editions of the Washington Post and is also posted on the
CNAS website.
I am thinking you'll be as interested in reading his take on the book as I was.
He Didn't Come Home
By Andrew Exum Sunday, September 13, 2009
WHERE MEN WIN GLORY :

The Odyssey of Pat Tillman by Jon Krakauer
Doubleday, 383 pp. $27.95
...
Guy Montag’s Response:
I had read Andrew Exum‘s September 13th Washington Post book review of Jon Krakauer‘s Where
Men Win Glory the same day it was published. What first struck me was how Exum began his review
with his personal account of watching the Tillman firefight on a Predator video feed at Bagram. He
actually provided evidence for a ―conspiracy theory‖ while at the same time, he dismissed Krakauer
as a conspiracy nut!
170
A few days after reading Where Men Win Glory, after I ―googled‖ Andrew Exum and CNAS, it
rapidly became apparent to me that Exum had close personal and professional ties with General
McChrystal. It certainly appeared that Exum wrote his book review to whitewash McChrystal‘s and
the Ranger RGT officers‘s role in the Tillman cover-up.
After I read Roy Exum‘s column (9-19-09) about his son‘s book review, I emailed him expressing
my concerns (the beginning of this tome, ―He Who Shall Not Be Fact Checked.‖
...
Guy Montag’s email to Roy Exum – September 19, 2009:
In his book review of Jon Krakauer‘s Where Men When Glory (9-13-09 Washington Post),
Andrew Excum dismissed Krakauer‘s assertion that there was a ―conspiracy‖ by the Army to
cover-up Tillman‘s fratricide:
―depending on your point of view, [how fratricide was kept from family] was either a
gross error of judgment or a conspiracy engineered by the U.S. military and the Bush
administration … Those who have spent time in the military… tend to err on the side of
incompetence, while those who never have -- such as Krakauer -- tend to suspect
conspiracy.‖
However, the very first sentence of Exum‘s review actually provided proof of just such a
―conspiracy‖:
possible need of assistance. … I listened on the radio to the U.S. casualty report from the
other firefight: One killed in action, two wounded. … I arrived back in Bagram to learn
the name of that Ranger killed in action: Spec. Patrick Daniel Tillman.‖
Correspondingly, Jon Krakauer wrote on page 261 of ―Where Men Win Glory‖:
―The forward observer … heard an airplane flying overhead …‘As I listened closer I
knew it was a Predator drone.‘ … equipped with cameras … headquarters later confirmed
that a Predator was overhead during the firefight, and a civilian contractor at Bagram said
that he remembered seeing the Predator‘s video feed …the Army and the CIA
nevertheless asserted that no such video existed.‖
footage of the firefight during which Tillman was killed, since the Army says no such video
171
exists. I guess that footage ―disappeared,‖ just like all copies of the first investigating officer‘s
15-6 report just happened to somehow disappear!
Why is Andrew Exum so dismissive of any ―conspiracy‖? I would argue that he is protecting
General McChrystal who played a central role in the Army‘s cover-up of Tillman‘s fratricide.
Andrew Exum supported McChrystal‘s promotion to command the Afghan War (―McChrystal is
an automatic starter in anyone‘s line-up‖), ―recently returned from Afghanistan as part of
General McChrystal‘s assessment team‖ and mentioned on the Charlie Rose show that ―as big a
fan I am of General McChrystal.‖
Clearly, despite Exum‘s background as an Army Ranger officer in Afghanistan, he was a poor
choice of reviewer since he has a ―dog in the fight.‖
...
Roy Exum: I Refuse to Watch It
Roy Exum -- July 13, 2010 Chatthanoogan.com
Next month there will debut a film entitled ―The Tillman Story.‖ It will depict the life and death
of the greatest hero I have known in my time, an Army Ranger named Pat Tillman, yet I will
refuse to watch it. It is about a cause I refuse to accept, one that I deeply feel is something other
than what I am.
… Let me tell you, up front, that I am intrinsically tied to the movie and Lord knows I don‘t want
to be. But on the night the man died who shunned a career in the National Football League to
become a foot soldier in our nation‘s Army, a close friend of mine [his son, Andrew Exum] was
on the next hill. … my son, on that fateful night, came back home and is to be married in the
fall.
… No matter what some film director named Amir Bar-Levi may portray in his August 20th
opening, let‘s first remember that Pat and his brother Kevin, who gave up a promising career in
baseball, had made the choice of joining the Army after the 9/11 tragedy because it was what
they wanted to do.
… Pat Tillman, for my money, was in the fight against terror. He gave his life in an effort to
eradicate it. So while there are those like movie director Amir Bar-Levi who would make money
with his film, let me be so bold as to suggest he would diminish this warrior, tarnish his
172
posthumous Silver Star, with the premise the government‘s handling of Pat Tillman‘s death
would detract from his primary mission – to protect us.
I am told the most gripping moment in the film is portrayed in the moment when another of Pat‘s
brothers, Richard, wearing blue jeans, a tee-shirt, and with a beer in his hand, takes the stage at
Pat‘s memorial service and shouts, ―Pat isn‘t with God. He‘s (expletive) dead. He wasn‘t
religious. So thank you for your thoughts, but he‘s (expletive) dead.‖
I, for one, don‘t need to see that. Again, my son came back but, instead, he told me that at the
memorial service held for Pat Tillman in the Ranger cap the day after he was killed, the
commander assembled all the Rangers and told them he could whirl three times, throw a rock,
and hit a hero as big as Pat Tillman. And the guy who told me that story said it was the most
magnificent moment he‘s ever known. Nobody but Rangers were there, no pretenders or
phonies. Each man knew what Pat Tillman did for his country. They also knew he died for it. I
dare say movie director Amir Br-Levi does not.
Do not go watch ―The Tillman Story.‖ I will never watch it but, for the life of me, I can tell you it
is false. My belief is based on 200 years of valor, of reading and believing repeated tales of
those who have blessed me with freedoms I cherish. I believe “The Tillman Story” is not about
the real truth. … Because I believe as I do, Pat Tillman will always be my hero. And I will be
forever grateful.
...
Guy Montag’s July 13, 2010 email to Roy Exum, responding to his column:
Just before the 2006 mid-term elections, Kevin Tillman published his eloquent letter, ―After
Pat‘s Birthday‖. Kevin hoped a Democratic Congress would bring accountability back to our
country. But, just as with warrantless wiretapping and torture, those responsible for the cover-up
of his brother‘s friendly-fire death have never been held accountable for their actions.
In his book, ―Where Men Win Glory,‖ Jon Krakauer blamed only the Army and the
Bushadministration for the cover-up of Pat Tillman's friendly-fire death. Amir Bar-Lev, the
director of the forth-coming documentary ―The Tillman Story‖ emailed me that ―he was pretty
hard on the Democratic Congress in his film.‖
However, both Krakauer and Bar-Lev missed the untold story that the Democratic Congress and
the Obama Presidency protected General Stanley McChrystal from punishment for his central
role in the cover-up of Pat Tillman‘s friendly-fire death (and they promoted McChrystal twice!).
The cover-up was a thoroughly bi-partisan affair.
173
… In addition, the media was complicit as well. The New York Times Reporter Thom Shanker
―exonerated McChrystal from all wrong-doing and the Center for a New American Security's
(CNAS) Andrew Exum wrote a book review ridiculing the idea of a conspiracy to cover-up
Tillman‘s death.
Five years ago, Pat Tillman‘s family were handed a tarnished Silver Star. It was a travesty of
justice that General McChrystal was promoted to the Army‘s highest rank, and handed his fourth
star.
...
―Next month there will debut a film entitled ―The Tillman Story.‖ It will depict the life and death
of the greatest hero I have known in my time, an Army Ranger named Pat Tillman, yet I will
refuse to watch it. … Let me tell you, up front, that I am intrinsically tied to the movie … a
close friend of mine [Andrew, your son] was on the next hill. … Do not go watch ―The Tillman
Story.‖ I will never watch it, but, for the life of me, I can tell you it is false.‖
Really? You haven‘t watched it, but ―for the life of me‖ you can tell me it is false? Is this
journalism at its‘ best? It‘s on the level of your ―close friend‖ who wrote a Washington Post
book review last September deriding ―conspiracy‖ theories that the Army covered-up Pat
Tillman‘s friendly-fire death.
It‘s rather ironic your son spoke of watching Predator footage that night of Tillman‘s firefight
when he was on the Ranger QRF at Bagram. Donald Lee, the forward air observer attached with
Tillman‘s platoon, heard a predator overhead during the firefight. But that footage disappeared,
the Army just can‘t find it. Or find the original 15-6 investigation report. Or figure out who
altered the Silver Star witness statements to remove all mention of friendly-fire (only three
officers could have done that: LTC Kauzlerich, COL Nixon, and MG McChrystal).
I drove 12 hours to DC a couple of weeks ago to watch the film, so I actually have some basis to
talk about the film. And the Tillman family is very happy with the film by the way. In fact, the
movie is just as much about the Tillman family and their battle for the truth as about Pat Tillman.
But hey, ―I can tell you it is false.‖ Go watch the film, then run your mouth.
And take a look at my feral firefighter blog where your son was featured a while back for his
defense of Gen. McChrystal and his Ranger officer buddies. Your son Andrew is either an
ignorant fool on this subject, or a willing propaganda tool.
Which side are you on? With the Tillman family of ―the greatest hero I have ever known‖ or
those who have dishonored his legacy with lies?
174
Kagan Squared on Afghanistan

January 10, 2011 | Posted by Abu Muqawama - 11:40am | 0 Comments
Early this morning, I participated in a discussion of Kim and Fred Kagan's new report on
Afghanistan. I'm going to briefly share my comments on the report …
I left the life of a U.S. Army officer in Afghanistan in 2004 to try my hand at social science
and picked up a concentration in the Arabic-speaking world along the way… The social
sciences gave me the epistemological questions I'm always asking myself -- "How do I
know what I 'know'?" -- and the regional concentration made me more aware of what I do
not know when looking at another, new region. So I am very cautious … about drawing
conclusions …
Guy Montag Comment January 10, 2011 – attempted post 1 PM
I agree that it‘s always a good question to ask, ―How do I know what I ‗know‘?‖
But it appears AM hasn‘t yet asked that question about ―The Tillman Story‖ (DVD out 2/1).
As recently as Oct. 2nd AM wrote, ―... [Gen.] McChrystal did not have a conspiratorial bone
in his body (I agree) despite plenty of nonsense from the Left to that effect, and after a U.S.
Army inquiry cleared him of any wrong-doing. …‖
―Nonsense‖? Well, I‘ve previously commented about AM‘s woeful (or is it willful?)
ignorance of Gen. McChrystal‘s complicity in the matter.
Perhaps AM‘s epistemological approach is similar to the columnist who wrote, ―Next month
there will debut a film entitled ―The Tillman Story.‖ … It will depict the life and death of the
greatest hero I have known in my time … yet I will refuse to watch it. … Do not go watch
―The Tillman Story.‖ I will never watch it, but, for the life of me, I can tell you it is false.‖
(―I Refuse to Watch It‖ -- July 17, 2010)
...
Note: I was finally able to post this comment on January 12, 2010 (several attempts prior
attempts were blocked by the site moderator).
175
Who Is Roy Exum?

Roy Exum, The Patriot Post -- February 5, 2010
I am deeply flattered and quite humbled to join a crowd that I consider to be the best journalists
in America as I sign on as a columnist with The Patriot Post. … I don‘t pretend to be a scholar,
or even a great writer, but in the South some are gifted with the ability to tell a story and I came
about in a pretty honest way. …
I am the second of six children. My dad was from central Mississippi and was a great story teller.
The fact that he had six years of Latin and five years of Greek lent richly to his easy drawl. He
was evermore a scholar with post grad years at Princeton and Stanford and met my mother when
he was hired to teach at an exclusive prep school (McCallie) in Chattanooga, TN.
[My mother‘s father] also owned a daily newspaper (The Chattanooga News-Free Press) …
when I was in my junior year of high school … I was put in the newspaper‘s sports department.
… the great reporters I was with constantly were tough critics … that molded me into a writer
who has won some really nice awards. … in 2001 when my family sold the newspaper. … I
adored our newspaper and was so bitter when I left I swore I would never write again.
… John Wilson, had started a Chattanooga-based news website and … made his
chattanoogan.com available to me. For the last three years, I have written stories every day that,
well, I enjoy telling. … you will see a strong thread of sports stories but my bigger focus has
always been the people and the events, in and out of the arena, that made them who they are and
molded me at much the same time. I still have a small sign that reminds me, ―Great stories begin
with powerful elements of human emotion.‖
...
Note: Guy Montag‘s dad grew up just north of Greenwood in ―central Mississippi.‖
Considering that his father was a sharecropper & carpenter by trade, I doubt that our families
mixed in the same social circles; I‘d bet that the Exum‘s were from the plantation class.
However, my Dad did attend Ole Miss for a year in ‘55 – ‘56 with savings from a summer
working in a steel mill in Youngstown. Roy Exum also attended Ole Miss in Oxford,; so our
families do have that in common.
176
“THROWING MY SHOE AT BOB WOODWARD”
Finish details in talk of nation, exum rude, 1500 people
************************************

issues.
… As veteran media critics have noted, a growing number of "journalists" have exchanged
ridiculously uncritical coverage of this administration for the kind of high-level access necessary
to write "insider" books on the administration. This article is -- surprise! -- an excerpt from one
of those insider accounts. Nothing in this article seriously challenges the administration's
version of events, … but Alter's "journalism" more closely resembles court stenography than a
public service.
Note: ―…‘journalism‘ that more closely resembles court stenography than a public service.‖ …
sounds like a Bob Woodward book.
...
On Woodward's Book: A (Very Minor) Clarification

I arrived back in the office this morning to discover a copy of Bob Woodward's new book on
my desk with the rest of the mail … That having been said, and since Marc Ambinder is
already giving me credit for having convinced Stan McChrystal to institute strict new traffic
guidelines for ISAF vehicles*, I need to make one minor correction -- a clarification, really --
to the section of the book in which I appear:
177
―The Toyotas raced around Kabul. The drivers honked their horns rather than step on
the brakes, madly changing lanes, swerving through traffic and accelerating at every
opportunity. The theory was that erratic driving reduced the chances of a roadside
attack. Afghans who didn't jump out of the way could be plowed down. After one of
the SUVs ran a bicyclist off the road, Andrew Exum, a fellow at the Center for a New
American Security and a former U.S. Army Ranger, asked the driver, ‗What are you
doing, man?‘
"You can't be too careful. Could've been a bomb, sir," was the response. But this kind
of commute left Afghans on the street visibly angry. The team could see how an
emphasis on force protection was causing the coalition to lose the Afghan people.
Exum wrote a one-pager for McChrystal about aggressive driving and armored
vehicles entitled "Touring Afghanistan by Submarine."
… It was, as Woodward writes, as if I was seeing Afghanistan through a periscope. … I spent

much of my time on Gen. McChrystal's review team examining our culture -- and how an
operational culture defined by "force protection über alles" hinders our ability to learn about
and understand the local dynamics of the conflict. That, in addition to running people of their
own roads, was what led to that paper.
On another note, readers of this blog will either be pleased or dismayed to discover that the
same black humor and blunt informality you see on this blog are also characteristics of my
interactions with four-star generals. For better or for worse, I suppose.
*********** check comments section for BW book mention?

...
On Woodward's Book: Heroes and Villains?

October 2, 2010 | Posted by Abu Muqawama - 11:29am | 40 Comments
I had a really busy week at work and was only able to finish Bob Woodward's new book this
morning. I must say, I really enjoyed it. It is almost impossible to dispassionately judge the
winners and losers of the book, in large part because your view on who is a hero and who is a
villain will be informed by your opinion regarding the outcome of the policy debate in the
fall of 2009. … For my part, I can see why the White House was not too concerned about this
book. I think the president comes out of it looking really good. …
If I had to fault anyone in the narrative it would be the uniformed military in Washington,
DC. I don't think the uniformed military conspired to box in the president, but I do think
they failed to provide credible alternate strategies until too late in the process. (The only
credible alternative was provided by McChrystal, late in the game, after he was asked what
he would do if he did not get the additional 30,000 troops.) …
178
Speaking of Stan McChrystal, is he a surprise winner in all of this? Doug Lute is quoted as
believing that McChrystal did not have a conspiratorial bone in his body (I agree) despite
plenty of nonsense from the Left to that effect, and after a U.S. Army inquiry cleared him of
any wrong-doing.
In the L'Affair Rolling Stan, Eliot Cohen asked the following:"I don't get it. The president
fired one of our truly great commanders not for things that he said but for tolerating
indiscretion, disloyalty and disrespect among his subordinates -- but do these people apply
anything remotely like that standard to themselves?" …
...
Comment by Guy Montag on October 3, 2010 - 5:21pm [late post since first blocked]
“… McChrystal did not have a conspiratorial bone in his body (I agree) … and after a U.S.
Army inquiry cleared him of any wrong-doing [in the Army‟s handling of the Tillman case]”
McChrystal was hardly cleared of "any wrong-doing" for his role in the Tillman story. The DoD
IG investigation, headed by IG Thomas Gimble, said McChrystal was "accountable" for
"inaccurate award information" (translation: fraudulent Silver Star recommendation & altered
witness statements). However, Gimble left the decision to discipline (or not) up to Secretary of
the Army Pete Geren. Geren appointed Gen. Wallace to "review" the Tillman case and
recommend discipline. Wallace ignored the IG's findings and recommended no discipline for
McChrystal. Instead, Gen. Kensinger became the designated scapegoat for the sins of
McChrystal (among others) for the Army's cover-up of Tillman's friendly-fire death.
...
body (I agree) plenty of nonsense from the left to that effect":
I've documented McChrystal's complicity in the bipartisan whitewash (as well as those in
Congress such as Henry Waxman, John McCain, Carl Levin, Jim Webb & President Obama) in
my "The [Untold] Tillman Story" at http://www.feralfirefighter.blogspot.com
...
body (I agree) despite plenty of nonsense from the Left to that effect…”
Instead of ad hominum attacks, perhaps AM could actually explain the "nonsense' in my material
or that of Mary Tillman ("Boots on the Ground by Dusk" at blurb.com) or Jon Krakauer's
"Where Men Win Glory" (paperback edition with more detail on McChrystal's role) or try John
T. Reed's "military articles" at johntreed.com. And for those in major metro areas, the Sundance
documentary "The Tillman Story" is now showing (two theatres in DC).
And, I wouldn't call myself "Left". I would identify more with the agrarianism of Wendell Berry
or the principled conservatives/libertarians like Bill Kauffman, Andrew Bacevich or some of the
179
voices at the "American Conservative" magazine. Maybe I'm so far to the "Left" that I'm
"Right"?
Concerning the Tillman story, AM is either willfully ignorant or disingenuous, at best. Last year,
it certainly appeared that he was whitewashing McChrystal with his critical review of Krakauer's
book last year for the WP and his spirited defense of McChrystal in his 11-02-09 AM post.
...
Comment by Pave Low John on October 3, 2010 - 5:00pm
"Jay-zus, Exum, get off your knees, you're embarrassing the CINC" - possible quote from
anyone in 10th Mountain or the 75th RR who remembers Andrew E. when he had a commission
and some self-respect.
Believe it or not, I actually read 'This Man's Army'. Read Fick's book too. What it is about these
prep-school/Ivy League guys doing a hitch or two in the combat arms, then punching out to work
for some lefty think-tank? Afraid you'll miss the GS-15 gravy-train? But don't worry, Exum, I'm
sure the SECDEF or Michele or some other DoD wonk reads this blog and is very happy with
your analysis. I'm positive they'll make you a minor assistant undersecretary for something-or-
other in the Five-Sided Squirrel Cage one day. …
Even McChrystal, god help us, pussed out in the end. Does anyone here REALLY think a crafty
old operator like Stan the Man had no idea how stupid it was to let a Rolling Stone reporter
watch his staff get hammered in Paris? He wanted out of the hot seat, plain and simple, and he
used that douchebag reporter to do it. Now he can shrug and claim he's not a 'quitter' if the whole
thing falls apart in the next couple of years.
God, I can't wait to retire. Just one more year of this...
******
Insert edited NPR interview after finish it up 12-13-11
******
180
Woodward, Barno and Some Other Guy on Afghanistan

December 6, 2010 | Posted by Abu Muqawama - 1:42am | 10 Comments
A few months ago, LTG (Ret.) Dave Barno and I sat down to try and figure out how the U.S.
military and its NATO allies might transition from a counterinsurgency campaign in Afghanistan
to something less resource-intensive between July 2011, when the president envisions U.S.
troops beginning a withdrawal, and 2014, when Hamid Karzai wants the government of
Afghanistan to have full sovereignty over its territory.
The result of our thinking is a new report that will be released this week [update: read it here]
and formally rolled out next week in an event at the Newseum moderated by Bob Woodward. …
we already have 300+ RSVPs.)
I am actually in Afghanistan myself at the moment, traveling around the country speaking with
U.S. and allied military officers, Afghan politicians and military officers, locally based
journalists, civilian researchers, NGO representatives, and many others. … I am scheduled to
arrive back in the United States about eight hours before the event, so my beard will be long, my
hair unkempt, and my observations fresh. Please join us.
...
Responsible Transition: Watch LIVE

If you are not one of the 500+ people coming to this afternoon's event featuring Bob
Woodward, Dave Barno and yours truly, you can watch it live on C-SPAN at 1:30 p.m. or by
following this link to the C-SPAN website. Read the report here (.pdf). You will want to
watch this event live, because I have just gotten off a plane from Kabul via Dubai, am
severely jet-lagged, and just may say some ridiculously crazy stuff. The support staff here at
CNAS is trying to determine exactly how much coffee I can ingest between now and 1:30
p.m., so count on me to either fall of the dais or be particularly intemperate/amusing in my
remarks. (Oh, and I have not trimmed my beard in a month. Nate said I could not henna the
thing, but I think it would have been awesome if I had.)
****** 1500 folks?

...
181
Afghanistan Trip Report, Part III: Five Concrete Ways Policy

Makers in DC Can Help the War Effort
Sometimes I wish I were just in the "Pointing Out All the Things Going Wrong in
Afghanistan" business. Part of my job responsibilities, though, include being in the solutions
business. Accordingly, and to mark the release of the much hyped December review, I posted
commentary on Foreign Policy last night outlining five concrete ways in which policy
makers, legislators and intelligence officials in Washington, DC can help the war effort in
Afghanistan.
… Finally, if you really can't get enough of my commentary on Afghanistan, here I am on

the Diane Rehm Show yesterday. I got a little testy when one guest made some statements
about the insurgency without backing them up with hard evidence. But looking back, I really
should have apologized for being somewhat rude.
******** see transcript

...
Comment by Visitor on December 18, 2010 - 3:18pm [last post since first ones blocked]
“… here I am on the Diane Rehm Show yesterday [12-15-10]. I got a little testy when one guest
made some statements about the insurgency without backing them up with hard evidence. …”
...
@AM, I missed hearing your appearance on the Diane Rhem NPR show Wednesday. However, I
did speak briefly with Bob Woodward on Monday‘s NPR Talk of the Nation.
First, I asked Woodward about the backstory to Gen. Stanley McChrystal‘s firing, referring to
the two meetings held May 6 and 11th (pp. 352, 354 of ―Obama‘s Wars‖) during which
McChrystal received a ―strike one‖ and ―strike two.‖ Unfortunately, Woodward provided no
juicy details about what was discussed during these meetings just a month before McChrystal
was fired.
Second, I asked Woodward to comment on how Gen. McChrystal‘s key role in the Army‘s
cover-up of Pat Tillman‘s friendly-fire death has been whitewashed by the Washington
establishment. Bob Woodward responded,"...of course, McChrystal was in the chain of
command, … But he was not the hands-on person making that decision."
―Not the ―hands on― person! Really? Unfortunately, I called up on the fly and hadn‘t prepared
my questions. Here‘s the question I should have asked Bob Woodward when I had the chance:
...
182
In your book, ―Obama‘s Wars‖ (p.154), you wrote that Gen. McChrystal had merely "... signed
off on the Silver Star recommendation that suggested Tillman had been killed by the enemy ..."
However, Jon Krakauer in his book, "Where Men Win Glory" (pp. 334 – 347 paperback edition),
described how Gen. McChrystal personally "administered the medal recommendation process"
with a false narrative that "was painstakingly written to create the impression Pat Tillman was
killed by enemy fire" and directly supervised the Ranger RGT commanders who altered the two
Silver Star witness statements. The Silver Star recommendation was "fraudulent" by "any
objective measure."
But instead of merely having "signed off" on a piece of paper that landed on his desk, Gen.
McChrystal had "orchestrate[d] what can only be described as a broad conspiracy to conceal
Tillman's fratricide ..." [Note: Krakauer's account was based largely on sworn testimony by Gen.
McChrystal, COL Nixon, LTC Kauzlarich, and LTC Bailey obtained by FOIA].
And Mary Tillman, in response to President Obama‘s May 2009 nomination of Gen. McChrystal
as Afghan war commander, wrote in her book, ―Boots on the Ground by Dusk‖: ―Not only is he
[McChrystal] lying about the circumstances surrounding Pat‘s death, … he is proposing false
language for the Silver Star narrative.‖
Mr. Woodard, were you ignorant of the facts of McChrystal's role in the Tillman case, did your
your high-level sources deceive you, or were you doing your part to whitewash Gen.
McChrystal‘s central role in the cover-up of Pat Tillman friendly-fire death?
...
@AM, my final question for Woodward applies equally to you.
On your blog, you‘ve contributed to the whitewash of McChrystal, ―made some statements …
without backing them up with hard evidence,‖ and written a biased WP review of Krakauer's
book [see ―He Who Shall Not Be Fact-Checked‖ in the post ―The [Untold] Tillman Story‖ at
http://www.feralfirefighter.blogspot.com].
P.S. You forgot to mention in your previous post about ―Obama‘s Wars‖ that Bob Woodward
put your blog at the top of his list of ―helpful‖ blogs (p. 419). Your modesty is commendable.
**************
Add Obama’s Wars after finish it up; then edit it for inclusion here
*************8
183
“SEMPER FIDELIS!”
Jon Krakauer’s Inside Story of Pat Tillman
Jeffery A. Trachtenberg, Wall Street Journal – September 11, 2009
Mr. Krakauer, who lives in Boulder, Colo., was interviewed by telephone.
In his fifth book, "Where Men Win Glory," journalist Jon Krakauer explains why,
broadening Mr. Tillman's story by weaving in an account of America's deepening
involvement with Iraq, Pakistan and Afghanistan. He also details how Mr. Tillman was cut
down by friendly fire in Afghanistan on April 22, 2004, and examines the disturbing
aftermath. …
WSJ: You end the book with a gloomy visit to Afghanistan in early 2007. What did Mr. Tillman's
sacrifice mean?
―It didn't mean anything. It speaks to the mythology of war and how we glorify it for our
national interests. There is nothing glamorous or romantic about war. It's mostly about
random pointless death and misery. And that's what his death tells us. It reminds me that the
good aren't rewarded, there's no such thing as karma. Maybe it says something about the
dangers of any sort of idealism that isn't tempered by pragmatism or experience.‖
Quote of the Day

"The Iliad is ever mindful that war is about men killing or men killed. In the entire epic, no
warrior, whether hero or obscure man of the ranks, dies happily or well. No reward awaits
the soldier's valor; no heaven will receive him. The Iliad's words and phrases for the process
of death make clear that this is something baneful: dark night covers the dying warrior,
hateful darkness claims him; he is robbed of sweet life, his soul goes down to Hades
bewailing its fate. Again and again, relentlessly, the Iliad hammers this fact: the death of any
warrior is tragic and full of horror. Even in war, death is regrettable."
-- Caroline Alexander, The War That Killed Achilles
184
The One Percent Problem: How the Rich Ensure They Don't Pay
their Share
Thomas E. Ricks, Best Defense -- December 17, 2010
With President Obama caving the other day on continuing the tax break for the super-rich, it is a
good time to ask whether the wealthiest 1 percent is hijacking our political system. This is worse
than abandonment -- it feels more to me like an attack on our system. … I'm not calling for a
class war. I'm wondering whether one has been underway for many years.
...
Thersites and Achilles
Response by Jim Gourley 12:08 Am ET December 18, 2010
… I've been listening to the Iliad on tape lately and reading about the British poet-warriors of
WWI. Between Homer, Owen and Michael Hoh, you start to see some dots connect in rather
unsettling ways.
Take the case of Thersites and Achilles, for instance. Most everyone remembers Achilles' gripe
with Agamemnon-- old Ags dragged Greece into a war that went on for nine years without any
sign of ending, then took away Achilles' trophy-maid Briseis. Achilles then went on strike to
protest the hubris and injustice of his commander. Later, Thersites points a finger at Agamemnon
and indicts him for all the same things.
Achilles is cheered and secretly envied by the Greeks for his insubordination, but Thersites gets
cracked across the head by Odysseus. Achilles is a champion and an officer. Thersites is just a
grunt. Homer makes an uncomfortable point about the ancient Greeks that the Ivy-League sniper
mirrored in his post on here last week-- that we hold McChrystal up as a pyrrhic hero against
Obama and a victim of a rock mag hatchet job, but we don't give a moment's consideration to the
grunts in the same article who say the General's ROE got their buddy killed.
Lindy England, Bradley Manning, Steven Green and everyone else below the rank of E-9 get
roasted as fast as we can get them to a court martial. But the officers who fudged the Pat Tillman
investigation, the ones overseeing Abu Ghraib, the officers leading the "rogue platoon" or the
ones calling the shots in Wanat? What happens to them? Somehow, the military finds an
explanation for their actions.
185
… In ancient Greece, Thersites the vassal-conscript got whacked on the head for saying the same
thing Achilles the hero-noble did because he was vulnerable. 2,700 years later, I'm not so sure
we've made much progress.
...
“Where Men Win Glory”

Guy Montag 2:42 AM ET December 18, 2010
The title of Jon Krakauer's book, "Where Men Win Glory," was taken from a line from "The
Illiad". In his book, Krakauer portrayed Pat Tillman as an Achilles figure (with a bit of
Odysseus thrown in as well). From the tone of your comment, I believe you might be interested
in reading "The War That Killed Achilles: The True Story of Homer's Iliad and the Trojan War"
by Caroline Alexander (I read that book and The Illiad just a few months ago).
You mentioned "everyone else below the rank of E-9 get roasted as fast as we can get them to a
court martial. But the officers who fudged the Pat Tillman investigation ... What happens to
them? Somehow, the military finds an explanation for their actions."
LT Uthlaut (First Captain, top of his West Point Class) was ordered to split his platoon, over his
protests. He was shot in the face by the same friendly fire that killed Pat Tillman. Yet, he was
offered up as a low-ranking scapegoat and kicked out of the Ranger Battalion for his ―failure‖ to
control his platoon during the Pat Tillman's ―friendly fire‖ incident.
What happened to the officers who had their "hands-on" the ensuing cover-up? Gen. McChrystal
was promoted three times ending up as a four-star. The Ranger RGT commanders have all been
promoted: COL Nixon got his star. LTC Bailey got full-bird (recently got his star). LTC
Kauzlarich got full-bird.
And it's not just "the military [that] finds an explanation for their actions." The entire
Washington Establishment (per Andrew Bachevich's "Washington Rules") including both the
Bush & Obama administrations, Congress, and the Press (including the New York Times) have
whitewashed those involved in the Tillman cover-up.
I share the enlisted grunt's perspective. I was an Airborne Ranger LRRP for eight years and have
been a firefighter the past 20 years. Ironically, I was watching the HBO series "Generation Kill"
today at the fire station. "Back in the day" Nathaniel Fick was the LT of the Marine Recon
platoon featured in the series (and book of the same name). Now, he's the boss man at CNAS
186
whose Andrew Exum (former Ranger officer) has played a role in the whitewash of Gen.
McChrystal.
In Praise of Junior Officers
… The scope of the released documents led to widespread speculation that Goldman was
seeking to make more-senior executives who also are caught in an uncomfortable political
and public-relations spotlight look better by comparison to the 31-year-old trader.
This is the kind of thing that makes me thank the Lord that I go to work every morning and
answer to a retired U.S. Army officer and a former Marine Corps officer as my supervisors.
Because I know that neither John [Nagl] nor Nate [Fick] will ever throw me under the bus in
the way that it appears some of Goldman's executives are throwing this French bond trader
under the bus. In fact, on multiple occasions over the past year, I have either offended
someone or written something outrageous on this blog, and John and Nate have had my back
every time, earning my loyalty in the process. Where did they learn to protect their
subordinates?
The U.S. Army and U.S. Marine Corps, of course. It's true that we have all seen field grade
officers allow a junior officer to take the fall for something, … But reading this article in the
Journal this morning made my stomach turn on the Green Line into work, because it goes
completely against the ethic we learned as young officers. Protect and mentor your
subordinates. They will, in turn, reward you with their loyalty and hard work. This is smart
advice that applies as equally to business as it does to military organizations ....
...
―In fact, on multiple occasions over the past year, I have either offended someone or written
something outrageous on this blog, and John and Nate have had my back every time, earning my
loyalty in the process. Where did they learn to protect their subordinates? The U.S. Army and
U.S. Marine Corps, of course. It's true that we have all seen field grade officers allow a junior
officer to take the fall for something …‖
...
@AM:
187
Your Ranger RGT commanders offered up Lt. Uthlaut as the scapegoat for Pat Tillman‘s
friendly-fire death and kicked him out of the RGT (by the way, Uthlaut was hit in the face by
shrapnel during the incident and medivaced). Uthlaut was no slouch, he was the First Captain of
his West Point class, and had vehemently protested the stupid orders from the TOC to split his
platoon.
His superiors? All promoted. The RGT commander, Col. Nixon got his star. The XO LTC
Kauzlarich (―The Lost Kauz‖ in ―The Good Soldiers‖ book about the Surge) who led the 15-6
―investigation‖ was promoted to Full Bird. And General McChrystal? (who was in charge of
fabricating Tillman‘s Silver Star and personally led the cover-up on the ground in Afghanistan)
Of course, he got his fourth star.
What about your Ranger values ―to never fail a comrade‖ and Nate‘s ―sember fi‖? Just more
hypocritical BS! At least when it comes to having the back of your fellow Ranger Pat Tillman
and his mother Mary Tillman (―From the time I was very little, I was aware of my father‘s pride
in being a Marine. When I was three years old … I would stand between my parents, feet digging
into the soft leather of the big front seat, and sing the entire Marine Corps Hymn at the top of my
lungs‖ from her ―Boots on the Ground by Dusk‖).
Last year (―Confirm Him‖ 6-02-09) you wrote in your blog, ―The bottom line is, nothing is ever
going to heal the wounds inflicted on the Tillman Family … And while I have nothing but
respect for the Tillman Family…, their personal grief should not be a veto on the nomination of
the man [General McChrystal] … These are serious questions and are more important than either
the death of Pat Tillman or the alleged abuse of detainees.‖
I liked both you and Nate better when you were LTs. Now, you‘re both just a pair of Beltway
―suits.‖
Guy Montag
Co ―F‖ (Ranger) 425th Inf. 1983 – 1991, Firefighter 1991 – Present
P.S. If anyone else wants to learn more, take a look at ―Where Men Win Glory: Andrew Exum,
the Center for a New American Security (CNAS), and the Whitewash of General McChrystal‘s
Role in the Cover-Up of Pat Tillman‘s Friendly-Fire Death‖ posted at
...
Comment by Visitor on April 26, 2010 - 1:50pm
188
I have no dog in this fight, but I would really like to see the reply to that
...
Comment by gunboat diplomat on April 26, 2010 - 4:09pm
What's more important - loyalty or honesty?
It's a difficult moral choice in the institutional world - and there was some neocon PR flack
running around a few years ago trying to convince everyone that loyalty to the organization was
more important than the rule of law - in the Mafia, it's called Omerta. …
The Tillman cover-up - the conversion of a fratricide to a heroic death - is par for the course.
Those who participate in such cover-ups are rewarded for their loyalty to the organization, is all.
… Welcome to Brezhnev's America, folks. Loyalty to the organization is now a moral virtue,
and loyalty to the Constitution and to the rule of law is grounds for dismissal.
...
@Mike P
Kauzlarich's comments about the Tillman's religious beliefs can be found in the espn link
referenced above.
...
Here's one more quote from another Ranger to throw out into the blogosphere. Speaks for itself.
From "Where Men Win Glory, Jon Krakuer (p. 328):
―From the moment you first join the Ranger Battalion, it‘s ingrained in you that you will
always do the right thing. … Then you see something like what they‘re doing to Pat –
what officers in the Ranger Regiment are doing – and you stop being so naïve.
The only two times where I personally was in a position to see where the Army had the
choice to do the right thing or the wrong thing, both times they chose to do the wrong
thing. One of those times was what they did to Pat. It made me realize that the Army does
what suits the Army. That‘s why I won‘t put that uniform back on. I‘m done.‖
189
-- SGT Mel Ward
More at http://www.feralfirefighter.blogspot.com
2nd Lt. Janell Peske, USMC

On 11 September 2001, as I was at Fort Drum, New York, trying to get my light infantry
platoon ready to deploy to war, a young girl in southern California vowed to her mother that
she would one day "serve her country" in the military. I got to know both mother and
daughter after leaving the U.S. Army, and I am as proud as I could possibly be to
congratulate that "young girl", Janell Peske, on her graduation from the U.S. Naval Academy
today. …
I remember when I was commissioned, 10 years ago this week at the Union Club of
Philadelphia … As we head into Memorial Day weekend, we should give thanks not only for
those who have fallen on the field of honor but for all the simply amazing young men and
women who continue to volunteer to serve in and officer our armed forces. They continue to
be the very best of us, and just as it was an honor to have walked alongside them for a few
years in an otherwise misspent youth, I am deeply humbled by their sense of duty and
sacrifice as well as the seriousness with which they take the most important job you could
ever give to a 21-year old.
Semper Fidelis, 2nd. Lt. Peske. And thank you -- and all the other newly commissioned
officers out there -- for your service.
...
Comment by GuyMontag on May 28, 2010 - 9:56pm
...
190
...
Four Days Later
November 23, 2010 | Posted by Abu Muqawama - 12:12pm | 47 Comments
On Tuesday, 9 November 2010, 2nd Lt. Robert Kelly, USMC, was killed in Afghanistan.
Four days later, his father, Lt. Gen. John Kelly, USMC, gave the following speech. He did
not mention his own son's death. He tells the story of two other Marines instead.
This is powerful stuff. Semper Fidelis.
***
… We Marines believe that God gave America the greatest gift he could bestow to man
while he lived on this earth—freedom. We also believe he gave us another gift nearly as
precious—our soldiers, sailors, airmen, Coast Guardsmen, and Marines—to safeguard that
gift and guarantee no force on this earth can every steal it away. It has been my distinct
honor to have been with you here today. Rest assured our America, this experiment in
democracy started over two centuries ago, will forever remain the ―land of the free and home
of the brave‖ so long as we never run out of tough young Americans who are willing to look
beyond their own self-interest and comfortable lives, and go into the darkest and most
dangerous places on earth to hunt down, and kill, those who would do us harm. God Bless
America, and….SEMPER FIDELIS!
...

"SEMPER FIDELIS!" ... Not always, not even from our best
Here's a excerpt (full text at http://www.feralfirefighter.blogspot.com) from my May 2009 letter

to Senator James Webb (highly decorated Vietnam Marine) asking him to place a hold on Gen.
Stanley McChrystal's Senate confirmation:
191
―For thirty years your books have dealt with themes of honor, integrity, loyalty, and
betrayal. Re-reading your books, I noticed many parallels between your books and the
story of Pat Tillman‘s death. On April 3rd 2008, I sent your office a letter asking you to
become an advocate in the Senate for Mary Tillman‘s struggle for the truth about her
son‘s death.‖
I believed you would feel a sense of kinship with Pat Tillman and his family: The Tillman‘s are
of Scots-Irish descent. Military service was prevalent and respected in the Tillman family. Mary
Tillman‘s uncles were at Pearl Harbor, her brother was a Marine, and her father was a Marine
during the Korean War. Mary wrote,
―From the time I was very little, I was aware of my father‘s pride in being a Marine.
When I was three years old … I would stand between my parents, feet
digging into the soft leather of the big front seat, and sing the entire Marine Corps Hymn
at the top of my lungs.‖
Pat Tillman was driven by a core of honesty, integrity, and loyalty. His mother wrote,
―Pat was honest and incorruptible; he would be offended and outraged about the actions
taken in the aftermath of his death. … He was such a loyal person. He always wanted to
do right by the people who mattered to him.‖ Coach Dave McGinnis said at his memorial
service, ―Honor, integrity, dignity; those weren‘t just adjectives in Pat Tillman‘s life; they
were his life. Pat Tillman was the embodiment of loyalty and commitment.‖
Similarly, in [James Webb's 1981 novel] "A Country Such As This", Senator Judd Smith said,
―If nothing ever works out all the way, and if all things change, what‘s left? Your family
and your friends and your values, that‘s what‘s left. And your duty to them. … They‘re
the only important things in life. … And that the rest of it might change a million times,
be called wrong or right or anything else, but you must never violate your loyalty if you
wished to survive the judgment of the ages.‖
Five years ago, Pat Tillman‘s family were handed a tarnished Silver Star. It will be a travesty of
justice if McChrystal is confirmed by the Senate Armed Services Committee, promoted to the
Army‘s highest rank, and handed his fourth star. But, perhaps you were right years ago in your
[1981] novel, ―A Sense of Honor,‖ when CPT Lenahan said, ―I guess that‘s what the world does
to you. It makes you realize that honor and loyalty are traps with no reward.‖
192
I feel you owe a duty to Pat Tillman and his family. A duty to place a ―hold‖ on General
McChrystal‘s nomination and stop his confirmation on June 2nd. Yeah, that could be a lost
cause. You‘d piss off a lot of people. But, at least you would give Mary Tillman the small solace
of knowing there is one man of integrity in the Senate willing to stand as her advocate. Someone
willing to ―be a lonely champion of lost causes…‖ Perhaps you need to take a long look at the
picture staring at you from your office wall? [Grandfather Hodges "who himself lost everything
because of the causes he championed."].
You‘ve been a hero to me for three decades, since I was a teenager, through my years as an
Airborne Ranger LRRP, to the present day as a firefighter. I haven‘t always agreed with your
positions on the Vietnam War, etc. But I‘ve never before doubted your integrity. I‘ve always
trusted your sense of honor. I‘d like to think that, after three years in Congress, you are still able
to answer ―No‖ to the question your great-Aunt Lena asked of you in 1975; ―So you‘ve been to
law school. Did they teach you how to lie yet?‖
...
But, instead of helping the Tillman family, Senator Webb whitewashed Gen. McChrystal and
continued the Army and Bush administration cover-up of Tilllman's friendly-fire death. So much
for the Senator's sense of honor and "semper fi"!
...
"SEMPER FIDELIS!" ... maybe not .... Part II
Here's an excerpt (full text at http://www.feralfirefighter.blogspot.com from a letter I wrote to

Nate Fick (AM's boss at CNAS):
In 2002, Andrew Exum served as an infantry LT in Afghanistan (described in his book "This
Man‗s Arm") and again with the Ranger RGT in 2004. During 2003, you led a Marine Recon
platoon during the invasion of Iraq (as described in your fine book ―One Bullet Away‖, in Evan
Wright‗s ―Generation Kill‖, and HBO‗s excellent ―Generation Kill‖ mini-series). You both
appeared to be excellent LTs … back in the day.
In Exum's September 13th 2009 Washington Post review of Jon Krakauer‗s book, "Where Men
Win Glory – The Odyssey of Pat Tillman", Andrew Exum dismissed the notion of a conspiracy
to cover-up Pat Tillman‗s friendly fire death and excused the actions by his fellow Ranger
officers as a "gross error of judgment" (General McChrystal was not mentioned at all). However,
Exum failed to disclose his close personal and professional ties with McChrystal which created a
serious conflict of interest.
193
On November 1st 2009 "Meet the Press, (and his October 14th 2009 "Daily Beast" article) Jon
Krakauer accused General McChrystal of lying about his central role in the Army‗s cover-up of
Pat Tillman‗s friendly-fire death. In response, Andrew Exum posted, "On Martial Virtue … and
Selling Jon Krakauer‗s Crappy New Book," writing, "Stan McChrystal stands out as … probably
the least culpable guy in Tillman‗s chain of command … Stan McChrystal is one of the finest
men I have ever known, and I hope I have sons who serve under men like him."
I had believed that Andrew Exum and CNAS were part of the bipartisan "conspiracy" that has
protected General McChrystal and that Exum wrote his book review to whitewash General
McChrystal‗s role. Andrew Exum is either awfully good at feigning self-righteous outrage or is
woefully (and willfully) ignorant of the most basic facts of the Tillman case. It‗s possible Exum
believes his own bullshit about General McChrystal. As the saying goes, "It is difficult to get a
man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it."
Regardless, both Exum and CNAS obviously had personal and professional conflicts of interests
with Exum writing a book review that whitewashed the Army and General McChrystal. Clearly,
despite (or because of) his background as an Army Ranger officer in Afghanistan, he was a poor
choice to review Jon Krakauer‗s book. Apparently Exum hasn‗t forgotten lessons learned from
his stint as an Army journalist. In"This Man‗s Army" he wrote,
"When reporting as a "journalist‗" for the army, you quickly learn there is no news but
good news. … I put my Ivy League English degree to use writing shallow propaganda. …
I made it a game to see just how falsely positive I could be. … At the end of the summer,
the Dept of Public Affairs in Washington DC named me one of the army‗s 'Outstanding
Journalists' … I had earned my first medal from the army for writing in a newspaper."
I‗m disappointed by the lack of integrity displayed by Exum‗s involvement in the Tillman cover-
up. Perhaps that‗s to be expected once you leave your uniform behind, become a "suit" and
become part of the politics of Washington. As Exum wrote in his book, "… officers are often
looking out for their own futures rather than for the safety and good of their men."
So much for your Marines Corp‗s motto of ―semper fidelis and Exum‗s Ranger Creed "Never
shall I fail my comrades!" Neither you nor Exum have had the back of the Tillman family.
In Praise of Junior Officers

194
There is a great passage in Powell's Men at Arnhem in which he describes how junior
officers and noncommissioned officers die in combat. I do not have the book in front of me,
but it describes how, in combat, junior officers do not normally die while doing anything
fancy or obscenely heroic but rather by simply doing their jobs. … That having been said, I
have never known a job more horrifying and more rewarding than to be a platoon leader in
combat. The only job I ever saw that looked even remotely as rewarding was that of Ranger
squad leader. …
...
Comment by Visitor on December 22, 2010 - 12:30pm

―I have never known a job more horrifying and more rewarding than to be a platoon leader in
squad leader.‖
...
I agree with AM on the rewards of being a Ranger squad leader. I turned down offers to go to
OCS to remain the leader of my LRRP patrol. Best job in the Army. You go off into the boonies
with your six-man team without adult supervision (the PL and the rest of the brass stay back at
the TOC).
AM mentioned his experience as a Ranger platoon leader in his November 2009 post ―On
Martial Virtue ... and Selling Jon Krakauer's Crappy New Book‖:
―On the night [4-22-04] Pat Tillman was killed, I myself was leading a platoon of Army
Rangers as part of a quick reaction force in Afghanistan under the command of Stan
McChrystal (albeit many rungs down on the chain of command). I heard the casualty
report on the radio en route to another objective, but I did not discover it had been Pat
Tillman who was killed until returning to base the next evening.‖
―On returning to base, I walked into my battalion commander's office and started chatting
with him, as I often did, about books. This was the guy who had introduced me to books
like The Centurions and A Savage War of Peace , and before long, we started talking
about Pat Tillman. Tillman's highly emotional repatriation ceremony had been that night,
and we were thinking about how his death would hit the news back in the States. (We
were serving in a different battalion, and I at least had no idea Tillman was killed by
friendly fire. I would not learn that fact until I had returned to the United States a week
later [about 5-01-04?]) …‖
So, AM is told about Tillman‘s friendly-fire just a week afterwards , yet the Army doesn‘t bother
to tell his brother Kevin (in the same Ranger platoon) or his family for another month!
195
...
Back in September 2009, AM reviewed Jon Krakauer‘s book, ―Where Men Win Glory – The
Odyssey of Pat Tillman,‖ for the Washington Post. AM brushed aside the abundance of damning
evidence Krakauer presented about the Army's cover-up (never mentioning McChrystal‘s hands-
on role) and portrayed Krakauer as a nut-job conspiracy. Later, the WP ombudsman admonished
AM for his failure to disclose the conflict of interest his close personal and professional ties with
Gen. Chrystal created.
Yet, the opening lines of AM‘s book review actually provide eyewitness testimony to support
just such a ―conspiracy‖ theory! Here‘s AM‘s account of the night Pat Tillman was killed when
he was the PL of a Ranger QRF:
asked my squad leaders to gather our men while I awaited orders.
My platoon was dropped onto a 12,000-foot mountain at night to reinforce the small
reconnaissance team that had been battling men they believed to be al-Qaeda fighters,
killing two combatants. On the way south from Bagram, I listened on the radio to the
U.S. casualty report from the other firefight: One killed in action, two wounded.
After a truly miserable night spent at high altitude near the Pakistan border, I arrived back
in Bagram to learn the name of that Ranger killed in action: Spec. Patrick Daniel
Tillman.‖
"The forward observer assigned to Serial One, Specialist Donald Lee … heard an
airplane flying overhead … ―As I listened closer I knew it was a Predator drone‖ …
Several other Rangers also said they heard the drone. … headquarters later confirmed that
a Predator was overhead during the firefight, and a civilian contractor at Bagram said he
196
So … Andrew Exum must have been hallucinating when he wrote he saw Predator footage of the
Tillman firefight, since the Army says no such video exists. I guess that footage ―disappeared‖,
just as all copies of the CPT Scott‘s first 15-6 Tillman report just vanished! It must have just
been another one of the Army‘s ―blunders.‖ No cover-up here! Right. (more at 'He Who Shall
Not be Fact-Checked" at http://www.feralfirefighter.blogspot.com)
...
Comment by Guy Montag on December 22, 2010 - 10:12pm

What's my point? Well, the story is not quite dead ... yet. Amir Bar-Lev's documentary "The
Tillman Story" is among the finalists for the Oscar Best Documentary (out on DVD 2/1). Jon
Krakauer's paperback edition of "Where Men Win Glory" came out 7/10 (expands upon Gen.
McChrystal's role in more detail). Mary Tillman released her paperback edition of "Boots on the
Ground by Dusk" (at blurb.com) with a new foreward that describes how Congress failed to hold
those accountable, especially McChrystal.
I put together my website last year when it became apparent that nobody else was going to tell
the "untold" story about the Democratic Congress and President Obama continuing the
whitewash of Gen. McChrystal's (among others) hands-on role in the Army's cover-up. I don't
bear much animosity toward Gen. McChrystal; he was just a cog in the machine and left the most
fingerprints behind.
"Conspiracy theory" ? Well, just to be clear, I don't believe Tillman was assassinated. He was
killed by three bullets from a SAW burst from about 40 meters away by a tunnel-visioned
soldier... there's no mystery there. But, after Tillman's death, the lying & hypocrisy has never
stopped all the way to the top of the chains of command.
AM has been part of the whitewash or has been woefully/willfully ignorant of the facts of the
case.
...
Comment by Guy Montag on December 25, 2010 - 9:12pm

“I have never known a job more horrifying and more rewarding than to be a platoon leader in
squad leader.”
...
In his 2004 book, "This Man's Army", AM also wrote that "Increasingly, being an officer in the
army is no longer a temporary service to the country – it‘s a career. Consequently, officers are
often looking out for their own futures rather than for the safety and good of their men."
197
Here's Ranger team leader SGT Mel Ward's take on the actions of his officers in the aftermath of
Tillman's death (p. 384 of ―Where Men Win Glory‖ paperback):
"If you are going to lie and cover up what happened to someone who gave their life, ... --
then you deserve to swing. When I started hearing about the false award
recommendations, spinning the facts, changing their stories -- I was so pissed. The
dishonor the Army is doing to Pat's family ... it's unforgiveable. ... From the moment you
first join the Ranger Battalion, it‘s ingrained in you that you will always do the right
thing. … You will always tell the truth. ... Then you see something like what they‘re
doing to Pat – what officers in the Ranger Regiment are doing – and you stop being so
naïve. The only two times where I personally was in a position to see where the Army
had the choice to do the right thing or the wrong thing, both times they chose to do the
wrong thing. One of those times was what they did to Pat. It made me realize that the
Army does what suits the Army. That‘s why I won‘t put that uniform back on. I‘m done.‖
Ranger school and West Point graduate John T. Reed, in his post ―The General Who Lied About
Pat Tillman Gets Promoted to the Highest Rank and Made Head of Afghanistan,‖ wrote:
―McChrystal‘s promotion turns out to be an integrity litmus test. Those opposed to the
promotion (the Tillman family) have integrity; those in favor of promoting McChrystal ...
do not‖.
Feral Garbageman wrote above that AM "must pay"? Well, AM seems to be doing quite well
with his own future as a mouthpiece pushing the COIN gospel, he's hanging out with the big
dogs like Bob Woodward, etc. .... his integrity, that's another matter. AM's whitewash of Gen.
McChrystal shows which side he's on; certainly not with truth or the "good" of the Tillman
family.
My purpose? Maybe AM isn't yet beyond shame.
198
199

"He Who Shall Not Be Fact Checked" (January 28, 2010 Draft Revision 1/15/11)

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

"He Who Shall Not Be Fact Checked" (January 28, 2010 Draft Revision 1/15/11)

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

“HE WHO SHALL NOT BE FACT CHECKED”

Spring 2009: ―Generation Kill‖ 53

June 2, 2009: ―Confirm Him [Gen. Stanley McChrystal]‖ 58

June/July 2009: ―Abu Muqawama Goes All Mushy on McChrystal‖ 81

Sept. 13, 2009: ―Blame to Share on a Book Review‖ 85

Nov. 2, 2009: ―On Martial Virtue ... and Selling 98

Nov. 9, 2009: ―He Who Shall Not Be Fact Checked‖ 124

Nov. 23, 2009: ―Public Service Announcement‖ 146

June 23, 2010: ―L'Affair Rolling Stan‖ 158

July 13, 2010: Roy Exum: ―I Refuse to Watch It‖ 169

―Throwing My Shoe at Bob Woodward … Not‖

AM Founder Andrew Exum Joins CNAS (March 16, 2009)

Nomination … Revives Questions in Tillman Case. (May 26, 2009)

Confirm Him (June 2, 2009)

C: “Lies Borne Out by Facts … If Not the Truth”

Civil-Military Relations in the Obama Era (May 17, 2010)

Back from Afghanistan (July 22, 2009)

How I Spent My Summer (Sept. 21, 2009)

E: “Blame to Share on a Book Review”

He Didn‟t Come Home (Sept. 13, 2009)

Notes from “Where Men Win Glory‖ (Jon Krakauer, 2009/2010)

G: “He Who Shall Not Be Fact Checked”

Civil-Military Relations in the Obama Era (May 17, 2010)

Journalist/Soldier? [Carl Prine] (July 2, 2007)

H: “Public Service Announcement”

Public Service Announcement (Nov. 23, 2009)

Catching Up (Dec. 28, 2009)

I: "Dulce Et Decorum Est Pro Patria Et Religione Mori”

J: “L'Affair Rolling Stan”

Rolling Stone (June 22, 2010)

McChrystal Out, Petraeus In (June 24, 2010)

K: “I Refuse to Watch It”

Who is Roy Exum? (Feb. 05, 2010)

L: “Throwing My Shoe at Bob Woodward … Not”

Woodward, Barno and Some Other Guy on Afghanistan (Dec. 6, 2010)

Rebuttal of Bob Woodward‟s Whitewash of McChrystal (Jan. 16, 2011)

Notes from “Obama‟s Wars” (Bob Woodward, 2010)

Subordinates, How Not to Treat Your (April 26, 2010)

In Praise of Junior Officers (Dec. 22, 2010)

*** Incomplete Draft 4-13-11 ***

Letter to Nathaniel Fick, CEO of the

-- Mary Tillman, ―Boots on the Ground by Dusk‖ (2008)

October 31, 2009 [Revised 1-11-11]

*** Incomplete Draft 4-13-11**

**** fan, hope have sons, selected as civilian advisor

*** most culpable

***** insert Book Review from below

**** insert Martial Virtue from below

*** Lies and truth

*** or put details in each section?

*** Semper Fidelis

SGT, Co. ―F‖ (Ranger), 425th Infantry MI ARNG 1983 – 1991

**** Add old or UTS version of teach to lie yet

Nomination … Revives Questions in Tillman Case. (May 26, 2009)

“COURT STENOGRAPHER IN RESIDENCE”

Nice, subtle poke at AM and the NYT's Thom Shanker.

Tillman Case") despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. There's some

Thom Shanker is a perfect example of such journalism as stenography, never subjecting

Abu Muqawama Goes All Mushy on McChrystal

“BLAME TO SHARE ON A BOOK REVIEW”

“Soldiers are Either Victims … or War Criminals”

“Gross Error of Judgement or a Conspiracy”

“Boots on the Ground By Dusk”

* Incomplete Draft 4-13-11 *

* Incomplete Draft 4-13-11

* Incomplete, not even draft 4-13-11 8