Tweet
McChrystal doesn’t understand why he is creating more terrorists.
In an article today, McClatchy describes the creation of a new task force to address the issue of al Qaeda presence in prisons in Afghanistan. The article quotes extensively from McChrystal’s recent strategic assessment of conditions in Afghanistan.
On one front, McChrystal does acknowledge the obvious:
"There are more insurgents per square foot in corrections facilities than anywhere else in Afghanistan," McChrystal wrote.
Shockingly, after eight years there, he also reports that nothing has been done to separate hardened terrorists from innocent detainees in these prisons:
McChrystal said that eight years after the U.S. invaded Afghanistan, there’s still no systematic way to separate al Qaida members from less radical prisoners and that al Qaida leaders have used the prison system to plot a number of high-profile terrorist attacks, including a 2008 assault on the Hotel Serena in Kabul, where Norwegian diplomats were housed. Six people were killed, including a Norwegian journalist.
McChrystal then comes perilously close to understanding where the problem lies:
The problem extends to the U.S.-operated Bagram Theater Internment Facility, where "productive interrogations and detainee intelligence collection have been reduced," and where "hundreds are held without charge or without a defined way a head [sic]."
But then, of course, McChrystal veers away from dealing with what creates new terrorists:
"This allows the enemy to radicalize them far beyond their pre-capture orientation," McChrystal wrote.
How on earth can McChrystal believe that it is "the enemy" who radicalizes the detainees when he is even admitting that we are holding prisoners without charges and without any process for evaluating whether or not they pose a terrorist risk?
As I pointed out in this diary, McChrystal played a role in some of the worst prisoner torture in Iraq and in the hiding of the worst Iraqi prisons from the ICRC. That diary also pointed out that one of McChrystal’s chief plans in coming into Afghanistan to "stabilize" it was to increase the number of people put into prisons there, with the foreknowledge that many innocents will be detained.
McChrystal has all of the pieces lying there in front of him to understand how new terrorists are created in Afghanistan, but he refuses to see how his personal policy of detaining innocent citizens, torturing them and then keeping them in prison with no hope of release is what radicalizes them far more than any indoctrination from fellow detainees. Further, as Matthew Alexander has pointed out with regard to Iraq, the knowledge of these practices serves to recruit even more terrorists from outside the area:
I learned in Iraq that the No. 1 reason foreign fighters flocked there to fight were the abuses carried out at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo. Our policy of torture was directly and swiftly recruiting fighters for al-Qaeda in Iraq. The large majority of suicide bombings in Iraq are still carried out by these foreigners.
I hold very little hope for the task force that is being created. The deputy commander announced in the McClatchy article is Army Brig. General Mark Martins, who was a member of the task force that tried to recommend to Obama that we still need a method to detain prisoners at Guantanamo and elsewhere with no prospect of filing charges. He also served as legal adviser to Petraeus on detainee issues in Iraq.
The only way for the task force to have any beneficial effect on reducing al Qaeda recruitment in Afghan prisons would be for them to immediately put into place a total ban on torture along with full due process in providing rapid access to impartial, independent judicial proceedings to determine whether sufficient grounds exist for detention of each prisoner. Freeing the innocent detainees, and having them report that all torture has stopped, also would reduce outside recruitment dramatically. However, the personal histories of McChrystal and Martins argue that this simply will not happen. Note that in his strategic assessment, McChrystal laments that "productive interrogations…have been reduced", which makes me think he wants to increase the amount of torture that "produces" information. Instead, detention of innocents will probably even increase and torture will continue to be covered up.
In failing to understand the role his personal policies play in producing more terrorists, McChrystal is demonstrating a stupidity that is brutal in its effects on innocents and tragic in its effects of producing further senseless violence.
90 Comments
McChrystal is a sick neocon in sheep’s clothing, and it’s great that Obama is discounting his bullshit escalation recommendation.
Could you point me to where to find McChrystal’s announcement of ” … his personal policy of detaining innocent civilians, torturing them and then keeping them in prison with no hope of release…”?
Read the diary I linked to that discusses the New York Times endorsement of McChrystal. That diary quotes the evidence in an Esquire article that details McChrystal’s role in torture in Iraq prisons and his role in hiding those prisons from the ICRC. The Times editorial itself acknowledges that innocents will be detained in Afghanistan under McChrystal’s policy. The quote in this post about prisoners being detained without hearings into their status and with no hope of such hearings is from McChrystal’s own strategic assessment. That brings together McChrystal’s personal policy of detaining innocent civilians, torturing them and holding them with no hope of release. They are established facts he is too dense to realize how much his policy contributes to ongoing violence.
Do you want to defend this war criminal? Go ahead.
I’ve read the Esquire article and you might have noticed that I was had some conversation with you on the diary that you’re now suggesting that i read.
I’m not offering a defense of McChrystal, I’m suggesting that your rhetoric about his ‘personal policy’ is overblown.
Who the hell ever advocated the torture of innocent civilians?
The stated purpose of their warped “mosaic” theory of intelligence gathering relied on gathering up lots of people from a particular area and finding out everything they knew. As for torturing innocent civilians, ask the family of Dilawar, among lots of others. It’s just SOP for these monsters, no matter how much you want to deny it. To McChrystal, “productive interrogations” rely on “enhanced techniques”.
You’re talking to a concern troll.
Oh, I know. We have a long history. He’s very useful as an excuse to present more information in various ways. It’s much easier and more honest than using a sockpuppet to move the conversation along…
The question is really whether there is ever a rationale for torture. There isn’t. It is apparent from the statements quoted above that the US military has no reliable way to distinguish between combatants and civilians. So when they detain and torture prisoners it is pretty much a given that civilians will be tortured.
Thank you. You made that much clearer than I did.
Thank you, Hugh for pointing out that a policy of extensive torturing is going to end up including civilians.
This thought doesn’t seem to answer the question I was asking White. He’s saying that McChrystal is personally in favor of torture and indefinite detention of innocents.
Why don’t we start with: who or what has decided they are guilty? Surely you don’t believe that just because people are in detention whether it be Baghram, Abu Ghraib or Guantanamo, that some “proof” has been offered as to innocence or guilt?
Surely you don’t believe that just because some goofball has called these people “enemy combatants” that it makes it so?
I don’t believe that I said or implied that I think that everyone in custody is guilty. I’d explain but for fear of restarting a conversation that was mostly a morass of misunderstanding.
This is one of those things you don’t really have to think about very much. It’s obviously correct.
This is very interesting:
Unfortunately, it isn’t just General McChrystal’s personal history or attitude that is working against the implementation of the above paragraph. The system that delivers prisoners into this morass is the zombie military operation called Operation Enduring Freedom, and its authorization, the September 18th, 2001 AUMF. These two are inherently at odds with the majority of policy proposals that would have a positive effect (including those portions of McChrystal’s report that are well written, but also including proposals from many others), and they are inherently at odds with the rule of law, and with nascent international law (the International Covenant for the Protection all Persons from Enforced Disappearance).
Secondly, the prison system has been set up to deny accountability, before McChrystal, or even the Obama administration, ever got here. Prisoners are technically held by the Afghans. The U.S. can literally hand over a letter saying, “We think this person is a terrorist” and that constitutes evidence in Afghan court. There has not been the necessary effort to establish Afghan rule of law (this is also a huge source of discontent among Afghans, as the lack of rule of law is corruption, and to those who are religious, lack of rule of law is against Islam). The net result is that U.S. courts only end up ruling on those prisoners under de jure U.S. control (another standing of a court decision on its head, this time the Boumediene decision), and U.S. courts made the mistake of implying that the AUMF duration of conflict made sense, and that the treatment of prisoners held for it somehow could only be evaluated on common Article 3 violations.
This is why, in addition to what Steve Coll says, it is absolutely imperative that OEF and the AUMF be ended immediately, and all other decisions made from that starting point. The lens of de jure U.S. prisons narrows 12,000+ prisoners to around 1,000, the lens of the Bates decision makes habeas rights available to (military count) 23. While the ICRC has visiting rights to the full figure, there is no guarantee that none others are held incommunicado, and the justification for all of it is that damnable OEF/AUMF, which is even referred to in the McChrystal report itself as an apprehension mission.
Yes, the problem is much more widespread than just McChrystal, but he has become emblematic to me because he is so brazen in his actions. That he is now moving also into the political arena with his campaign to increase troop strength in Afghanistan makes him even more dangerous. I’d love to know what Obama had to say to him today in Copenhagen…
It would be nice if the emphasis on diplomacy shown by the Obama administration (and being discussed over on Glenn Greenwald’s board) would spill over in the internal debate on Afghanistan, too. McChrystal answers to more than President Obama, anyway, and it would be nice to know what the NATO leaders are telling him. Some of the European attitudes evinced recently are a textbook set-up for interrogation torture. That could undermine anything the Obama administration tries to put in place to prevent it (assuming they want to prevent it), given your research that McChrystal lacks the internals to stay away from it himself.
Good Post, Jim. McChrystal’s move into the political area is threatening. The Republicans have no serious people to turn to, so they might well turn to a man on horseback who is viewed as “non-political.” It may not be McChrystal. It may be Petraeus. But Petraeus has a Ph.D. from Princeton, and might not even be a Republican.
Don’t forget this isn’t the first time McChrystal has been in Afghanistan. He was right in the middle of designing the initial structure of operations in Afghanistan. CJTF-180 is one of the original groups requesting torture authority – their policy was the model for JOSC operations in Iraq (which McChrystal ended up overseeing).
Then he went from there to vice director of operations, J-3, of the Joint Chiefs (2nd in command of Operations) during the period when the interrogation authorities were formalized and approved. I don’t see how he wouldn’t have been involved in the mechanics of policy implementation – if not the discussions that led to approval.
From there, his exploits in Iraq running torture camps are legendary. It sure seems like Stanley McChrystal is one of the chief architects of the current military detainee system. Yes, it was in place before he took over command of Afghanistan – but that’s largely because McCrystal helped build it throughout his earlier career.
Thank you for this work-up, kgb999. You have stated the case for the prosecution very well. It’s pretty clear that McCrystal stands convicted by the citizens’ jury gathered here.
hmmm, has anyone researched McCrystal’s financial standing?
Thank you for filling in much of the early information on McChrystal’s role in developing the policy of torture. I’m going to hang on to those links…
Thanks Jim, great piece, recommended.
A Truly Shocking Guantánamo Story: Judge Confirms That An Innocent Man Was Tortured To Make False Confessions
Torture in Bagram and Guantánamo: The Declaration of Ahmed al-Darbi
http://www.andyworthington.co.uk/
Thanks. That’s a great story. I’ve turned into a big fan of Andy Worthington. His twitter feed can be followed here.
He is the best source for the truth about American torture. How about some humor in this serious thread..watch this video..too funny..Glen Beck cries us a Vick’s river of tears.
*******
http://rawstory.com/2009/10/le…..ry-on-cue/
Hmmmm. AP has a little bit more on the meeting today between Obama and McChrystal, which Gibbs called “productive”.
This bit is really interesting:
I like how Obama put into McChrystal’s mouth the words that the “drawn-out review” is a good thing, since McChrystal had been making public statements that sounded like he was getting impatient for Obama to approve his request for increased troops quickly. Let’s hope this means McChrystal is going to be on a shorter leash.
The length of McChrystal’s leash shouldn’t be the issue.
Meeting with his defense attorneys should be taking up ALL of his time. That this war criminal is in charge of our “Af/Pak” war effort (see — we aren’t even at war in a real country anymore!) shames all of us.
Thank you for this diary.
Yes, it does. Yet another reason for holding ourselves apart from Obama.
Who the hell ever advocated the torture of innocent civilians?
Well, this isn’t exactly an answer to your larger question, which was about McChrystal, but in August of 2002 Gonzales, Addington, Flannigan, Bellinger, etc. were all recipients of a CIA memo from an analyst sent to GITMO, complete with that analyst’s conclusions on innocent civilians (including specific, named individuals) who were being held at GITMO under depraved rules of handling. Addington’s response, to which they all acquiesced, was that “the President” had already ruled that anyone held at GITMO was an unlawful enemy combatant and they weren’t going to change that, no matter what. I think they also came up with a justification in part using the mosaic theory (those “innocent” civlians who were from the right regions and may have known people who knew people etc. – they just might not know what they knew).
Then you had the widespread acknowledgment at Abu Ghraib and all the other Iraq detention facilities that most of the people they were getting early on were not terrorists of any kind and were even often family members taken as hostages (also a war crime, well documented to have been policy of US forces for a period of time, and advocated for by those implementing that policy) And yet, despite that widespread understanding that most there were not “unlawful enemy combatants” a whole chain of command “advocated for” abuse of those held, softening them up, etc. While Dilawar was being slowly tortured to death, his interrogators had determined that he was not an “unlawful enemy combatant” and yet his handling was not changed.
I guess it depends on what you call “advocated” and maybe having someone say, “the United States does not torture” like Bush does would negate a finding that he “advocated for” torture by implementing torture policies – maybe having McChrystal and Petraeus say that they are there to “win hearts and minds” would negate a finding that they “advocated for” torture by implementing torture policies (and the detention policies all through Iraq and Afghanistan have pretty much been torture policies and pretty much been of mostly civilian populations)
A bit back, the DoD spokesperson for one of the Iraqi concentrated population camps we had been running talked about the fact that there were 180 or so men who still had not been released, even though the camp was officially closed now under our agreements with Iraq and had no basis since January when the international mandate had run out. He said that they were guilty of lots of crimes and were very bad men, although they didn’t really have evidence they could use to charge them (bc it would harm “sources and methods” to reveal) and also said that one way you knew they were really the bad guys, the real deal, was that if they weren’t they would have been released like the 92,000 other detainees who had been, eventually (often after years and years) released.
Wrap around that – the fact that we detained and held 92,000 innocent civilians is how you know the 180 or so we still have are bad guys.
Not that he was advocating detention of innocent civilians or anything.
That was an answer! Thank you, ma’am.
Now see, that wasn’t so hard. It only took a few of us to make you understand.
Try not to take credit for Mary’s work, Jim.
Urm, we’re all dealing with the same set of obscene facts. It’s just a questions of lining them up slowly and clearly enough for you to understand. Maybe you finally got there; McChrystal never will.
Yup, thanks again. When someone can explain what you mean, it is a bit clearer.
ICRC still showed 12,300 prisoners in Afghanistan as of the beginning of 2009, with only probably about 2000+ cycled since the year before. AFAIK, there are still a lot more than 180, or 600, or 1300, or whatever prisoners under U.S. control who are held as unprivileged belligerents even though there have not been lawful Article 5 hearings for them, and it is not clear they were all taken on any battlefield.
It’s so disgusting that so many people are still in those prisons.
Sorry — I jumped right in without reading down the page. Yours, of course, is a much more satisfactory answer and it did, after all, achieve the desired result.
Recommended. Thank you, Jim, for this fine diary. And thanks to Ondelette, bluebuttefly, Mary, Hugh, and alank for sharing the products of your fine research with us.
Have all our sane Generals been drummed out? Taguba, Mora, McKeirnan (?) – who else? Do we only have the products of MKULTRA left to direct our military?
The best was drummed out first…General Eric K. Shinseki.
*******
http://www.asianamerican.net/b…..nseki.html
MKULTRA..run by the CIA. The CIA started getting their secret funds way back in August 1946. Almost 63 years of doing what they do. Here is the original document.(PDF)
*******
“http://www.foia.cia.gov/cgi/1946/08%20-%20August%201946/Special_Working_fund_21_Aug_1946.PDF “
Thanks, blue. I’ve been trying to finish reading Official and Confidential, the Secret Life of J. Edgar Hoover by Anthony Summers, @1993. IMO, Hoover was the most evil and dangerous man alive during his rise and reign as Director of FBI. This book sheds a lot of light on how one man can literally control presidents and members of congress. (I ordered my hardback, first edition copy for $2.75 plus $3.75 shpg; total $6.50 from http://www.abebooks.com.) If Hoover had acted properly on info furnished by the double agent, Dusko Popov, 4 months prior to Pearl Harbor, that horror could have been prevented.
After Hoover died, Dusko Popov wrote his own book, Spy/Counterspy, published 1974; very rare. I found/ordered one of the original printings at http://www.Half.com for $20.68 + $3.99 shpg = $24.67. Popov received the Brits’ highest honors for his valuable WWII service, so he was not just some fake. (died 1984, I think).
Sorry for going off-topic, Jim, but the research on the dark side of America’s history that confronts us and the world now leads back and back and has its roots in the secret evil dealings of those in charge following WWII. IMHO.
..and those before WW2. Roosevelt was almost impeached because of his foreknowledge of and the allowing of Pearl Harbor to happen in order to get public support for going to war. Sound familiar; it should. That is forgotten history that appeared on the front page of newspapers at the time. Hoover was one of the worst humans of all time. Anything said in the book about him blackmailing Roosevelt?
Thanks, blue, for the link. I had to shorten it to get the info. Here is link to an Index of actual documents (each clickable to get ph copy of the actual doc) 1940-1953 and some important undated documents. I’ve read through some of them but there’s a lot there. It does clear up some of my questions about the secret past of the current CIA. I can begin to discern the loopholes used and abused by Dir CIA Allen Dulles and his cohorts to gain power and glory, to the detriment of our country.
If you want to know more about the secret past of the CIA, read “Murder Of an American Nazi.”
http://www.eloquentbooks.com/MurderOfAnAmericanNazi.html
http://www.blazingtrailers.com/show.php?title=441
Thank you, tpfleming, for the ref. Went to your links…very absorbing info. Went to my online book places and read the glowing reviews (5 star ratings). I’ve read some of the source material. [I have to pay home insurance and property taxes this month…maybe next month.]
On the Nazi connection one of the most disturbing books I’ve read is Skorzeny by Gelnn B Infield. My favorites about the CIA are 2 books by L Fletcher Prouty: The Secret Team and JFK…He was a very intelligent man and was in a position to know first hand what was going on. What puzzles me about him is that he participated in much of what went on and it seems to have taken the assassination of JFK to wake him up to how far wrong the CIA had gone.
74 at 74..don’t think that’s happened before..eek..a rhyming sentence.’g’.
Prouty followed orders and did his job until his conscience demanded otherwise. It was a different time. Where could he have gone to complain without shortening his lifeline? To this day, those who ‘quit’ are still controlled. Thanks why I suspect every word that comes out of Anderson Cooper’s mouth on CNN. He was..so still sort of is..CIA. That’s why he interviewed the women who spent a few months in Iran’s jail.(Too lazy to look up her name…Roxanne?)Her fake denial to Cooper was poor acting; no wonder she got caught. She had a copy of a government document in her possession that had to do with Iraq and the American government. Sibel said that her sources told her that the woman definitely was CIA.
Thanks for the help, Mary.
McChrystal’s a creep in too many ways to count. Good to know that jerks like him can rise so high in the U.S. military. Quite a reflection on the institution.
McChrystal could say any goddamn thing, he could put on spandex and a wig and stand on his fucking head and sing “Oh Susanna,” it doesn’t matter, it’s always more war.
Oooh. WaPo has more on the internal deliberations:
Sorry I missed this article this morning. Hooray for Biden!
It may all be kabuki. The Administration needs to cover itself by persuading its progressive base that it deliberated seriously. But will it really go against the McCainiacs when the chips are down? I hope so. However, I don’t think either Biden’s policy or McChrystal’s is right. Here’s my view.
I can’t imagine Obama having a twenty-minute meeting with the General in Copenhagen to tell him he’s getting everything he asked for.
That’s a point. But he always tends to middle of the road things.
The only way for the task force to have any beneficial effect on reducing al Qaeda recruitment in Afghan prisons would be for them to immediately put into place a total ban on torture along with full due process in providing rapid access to impartial, independent judicial proceedings to determine whether sufficient grounds exist for detention of each prisoner. Freeing the innocent detainees, and having them report that all torture has stopped, also would reduce outside recruitment dramatically
Thanks Jim,
Could you add to that schools, books, shovels, bricks, cement mix this all together with intent and you have a far better solution to the Afghan problem, which is us.
Great idea.
Jim thanks,
Mary a blessing as usual,
Anybody else TILLMAN, Mr. Mc Chrsytal ?
The “Convoy of Death” sure could not have helped the relationship between the U.S. and any Taliban members who were thinking about surrendering like the 2000 or more of the Taliban who surrendered and were basically suffocated to death in the fall of 2001.
This could not have helped at all especially since no one has been held accountable
Convoy of Death
http://www.informationclearing…..le3267.htm
Convoy of Death
http://www.antiwar.com/deliso/?articleid=3209
“War Crimes and the White House: The Bush Administration’s Cover-Up of the Dasht-e-Leili Massacre (July 2009)”
http://afghanistan.phrblog.org…..mes-video/
http://afghanistan.phrblog.org/get-the-facts/
http://afghanistan.phrblog.org/
DEJA VUE ALL OVER AGAIN!
I’d like to think that McChrystal is setting the stage for his own MacArthur moment; would that Obama had a bit more Harry Truman in him.
“How on earth can McChrystal believe …?”
The answer is that he can’t and doesn’t.
As a group, American military men have particular strengths and limitations that defined by the rules and traditions of their profession. Unfortunately, McChrystal is not a simple military professional. He is that particularly odious hybrid, the political general. Like MacArthur (and Sheridan), he is long on personal ambition and short on honor and obedience. He has no room for belief, only for expedients and talking points.
Bush and Company systematically rooted out the military professionals when they took power. The professionals would obey the order to march into the Republican Party’s disastrously ill-planned, under-provisioned, unwinnable wars. But they would not play the role of yesmen. They would not conform their professional advice to what their civilian masters wanted to hear. They would not cheerlead and shoot commercials for policies they knew to be based on delusions, lies, or worse.
The forced retirements opened up slots for the more pliable and ambitious types, like Petreus and McChrystal. A real reformist administration would hve sacked them on the afternoon of the inauguration and recalled their predecessors.
Thank you, robspierre. Your comment reflects much good research and wise analysis (IMHO). I totally agree with you.
Two words — Fire McCrystal…
John(?) Krackauer(spelling?) was on the DS a few nights ago, and he’s written a book about the war in Afghanistan — Where Men Are Made (or Born, something like that) — and he says that MacChrystal is THE one repsonsible for politicizing Pat Tillman’s death by friendly fire.
MacC’s just another Neocon(victs) future prez running mate wannabe for Sarah Palin . . . like Petraeus. The guy should be thrown in prison for what he did in the Tillman case . . . along with Cheney, Bush, Rove, etc., etc.
(sorry about all the ?s — not enuf caffiene yet.)
“Where Men Win Glory: The Odyssey of Pat Tillman (Hardcover)
by Jon Krakauer “
http://www.amazon.com/gp/produ…..0385522266
I should have read all replies before replying.
But what else can a poor field commander do?
And actionable intelligence is necessary to know where to target the predators’ hellfire missles.
That’s a horrible feedback loop, isn’t it?
It’s monumental insanity.
When McChrystal announced on 60 Minutes that “It’s important and tactically necessary that we reduce the number of civilian casualties in Afghanistan,” I shook my head and muttered: “What gave you the first clue, Sherlock?”
Yes. The most frustrating thing about McChrystal is that he comes tantalizingly close to identifying what the objective should be (hearts and minds, etc.) but then sets about doing the exact opposite (civilian detention, torture) of what would achieve that objective. He’s a classic Bushie and I just can’t forgive Obama for showing confidence in him.
Jim, perhaps neither McCrystal nor GWB has had any experience with “hearts and minds” and the art of persuasion using reason over brute force. There is something sinister in the make-up of a man who makes the life choices they made…IMHO. (I am a woman and the brute force choice is totally foreign to me.)
“On Thursday, 59 Senators voted against Senator McCain’s proposal that McChrystal appear sometime in the next six weeks, and 60 senators (including one Republican) voted for Democratic Senator Carl Levin’s amendment stipulating that McChrystal not testify until the president had already determined, independently of the Congress, whether and how to escalate a war.
Now, McCain is as slimy as they come, and his intention is purely to escalate a war. He has shown no interest in preserving the institution of Congress as a force in our government. But what he said was exactly right:
“So it’s ok with the administration for general McChrystal to go on ‘60 minutes’, it’s ok for him to give a speech at the Institute for Strategic Studies in London, but the administration does not want general McChrystal and General Petraeus before the Senate Armed Services Committee. How does that work?”"
http://journals.democraticunde…..wanson/925
I sense several things here; (1) possibly Senate is derelict in duty to advise president; (2) probably have decided to let Obama/McCrystal take full
blameresponsibility for Afghanistan failure; (3) realizes that as Commander In Chief Obama is going to do what he is going to do regardless of advice from Senate, so they are safe out of it. [all these may be wrong - I must go to your link to see if Senators explained their voting].blue, job for you: I can’t find anything on McCrystal’s formative years. This may be to protect his parents/wife/children from being targeted. His face and eyes impress me as those of a tortured, tormented person. Can you learn anything as to his childhood and youth? What influences/pressures allow a man to descend into such a dark abyss of depravity?
Some people are born psychos. His career has all been on the dark side..the secret ops side. When one thrives on killing and torturing, it is likely more than the result of a ‘bad’ childhood. He is a human killing machine. I doubt there is much to be found anywhere because his whole career has been clandestine. Information about his family would be kept private because of that, I think. He has one of the few wiki profiles that does not give the names of close family or what they do. Goggling his different ranks over the years does not bring up any information. His eyes are devoid of human emotion…dead they are.
Thanks for searching, blue. Your comment here posted before you saw my #70 giving link and info on McChrystal’s father, Maj. General Herbert McChrystal. All 5 sons went military and only daughter married a military man; kinda tells me the Papa’s entire focus was war, fighting and the only way was the military way – his way.
I think your conclusions have it right.
I noticed several descriptions of Gen. S. McChrystal as being “obsessed with killing terrorists” …well, we know what becomes of people who allow their obsessions to run full-out unchecked… We need to get rid of him ASAP!
I suspect that due to lack of information, daddy was probably part of Gladio. He could even have been one of those less than stellar ones who were hired by the US after the war. The same vaque description has been repeated at every web site worldwide. We aren’t even told where he was born..Germany or America. Herbert is a German name for a clue. While searching I found the history of American propaganda in the Middle East from 1950 onward; especially in Iraq. Guess whose book they wanted to use for propaganda in India at one point? Have long suspected that he was involved with the secret forces. Likely why he was an alcoholic. He had a conscience, though, as he tried to warn us through his writing. Time and time again in old government documents the same two themes pop up ie American Interests and oil.
*******
“12. Before establishing the New American Library, Victor Weybright worked for the American branch of the British publishing firm, Penguin Books, Ltd. He asked Penguin to authorize publication in India of an inexpensive edition of George Orwell’s novel 1984, saying “In this particular case, we are more interested in the effect of the book upon readers than in the commercial aspects of any such translation.”
Subsequently, an officer of Penguin Books wrote to a colleague, “With reference to the proposition for an edition of 50,000 copies of 1984 for India, this interests me considerably, as less than a week ago I had a visit from a somewhat vague individual from Washington, who is concerned with the distribution of certain books of alleged propaganda value throughout the world, and the one title which he mentioned was Orwell’s 1984 and the one territory in which he seemed to be particularly interested was India, so that I can only think that Weybright’s enquiry stems from the same source.”
(George Orwell’s correspondence indicates that he was asked for advice on propaganda for India and Pakistan, and that he responded that broadcasting would not be effective due to limited access to radios.)”
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/N…../essay.htm
Fascinating stuff at your link, blue. It sure tells a different story to what we were taught in ‘current events’ in my junior and senior years in HS. From the quick read it seems to me there wasn’t much difference in the State Dept and the CIA back then, even after J Foster Dulles died.
In the index to the Psychological Warfare documents (link in my comment above), the docs I read stipulated the propaganda, press ‘ownership’, etc., was to be used in foreign countries. Heh, it was used just as much and as successfully on us. Sickening!
BTW, I haven’t ignored your question re Hoover and FDR. Not a short, simple answer. Have to review those pages. Primarily it was Hoover’s fault, but he pointed the finger at Army and FDR. Yes, I’ve known of the story that FDR let it happen…don’t want to believe that.
[Oil was a big factor in causing the war with Japan, as you probably
know.] Time for sleep.
Not a story..fact. Will find it for you in a bit. Here is correspondence between Japan and the US that tells the history before Pearl Harbor.
*******
“Japanese Note to the United States
December 7, 1941 “
http://www.international.ucla……411207.htm
The US had been intercepting all communications from Japan since the 30s. They knew everything that was said year after year after year. They knew the Japanese were coming at Pearl Harbor and let it happen. I hope the link works..I don’t know how to shorten them.
*******
“The Army began doing some intercept from overseas sites in the 1930s. In the early part of the decade, the Signal Corps established an intercept station at Fort Santiago in Manila. The primary purpose for this station was to copy Japanese press broadcasts for Military Intelligence. Secondarily, the station would copy Japanese military communications.
The Army also carried out intercept training for Japanese messages in “kana code” at the signal School at Fort Monmouth, New Jersey. As with the Navy’s schooling, Army training was conducted by radio operators from detachments in the Far East who had taught themselves to intercept kana characters.
In mid 1940, Major Joseph Sherr was dispatched to the Philippines to improve intercept operations. More personnel were added to the intercept operations at the same time. The primary mission of the station, however, was Japanese diplomatic communications — needed by SIS in Washington — with military messages secondary.
Just prior to the outbreak of war, the Army had seven fixed intercept stations: Fort Hancock, N.J.; Presidio of San Francisco; Fort Sam Houston, Texas; Corazol, Panama Canal Zone; Fort Shafter, Hawaii; Fort McKinley, Philippines; and Fort Hunt, Virginia.
The Army did little cryptanalysis in the field. In 1939, the Signal Corps recalled its COMINT people from Hawaii and assigned them to Washington. Apparently the commanding general in Hawaii concurred — he had no access to the Communications Intelligence produced, and their replacements could be put to more necessary — from his point of view — general signals duties. “
https://www.nsa.gov/about/cryptologic_heritage/center_crypt_history/pearl_harbor_review/comint.shtml
Telegrams that show what was really going on from January to December.
*******
“1941:
U. S. – Japanese Diplomatic Communications
Prior to Pearl Harbor “
http://www.historyteacher.net/…..ts__us.htm
” “…everything that the Japanese were planning to do was known to the United States…” ARMY BOARD, 1944 “
“BBC Documentary: Sacrifice at Pearl Harbor”
http://whatreallyhappened.com/…..pearl.html
You weild a mean 2X4, blue! I’ll order the book and read it next ahead of the other 30 or so I’ve hoarded.
After reading the bold truth you have so unmercifully shown me, the parallel of PH and 9/11 could not be more obvious…rigged the same way, for the same reason, with the same results: War, Death, Destruction, Empire. And the films and news reports used thereafter the same way as propaganda: The sinking ships; trapped and drowning sailors tapping their last messages; the bodies floating or burning; the strafing and bombing of the parked airplanes; the terrified people running – all very similar to 9/11.
Surely this is the last veil of my self-deception; still standing there remains my daughter, that gentle horse of my childhood — and you, Blue.
Thank you.
Love you, too..lots of hugs. The truth hurts, but I don’t believe in blinders on horses or people. Knowledge is power. That is why it was said within an hour of the attacks that it was another Pearl Harbor. The past must be brought out into the open or this pursuit of Empire will not stop. The US and England made a deal..Palestine in exchange for the US entering the war. How’s that working out for anyone but the Zionists? The BBC documentary is a video; wasn’t sure about your reference to a book. No links for you today..I think you deserve a ‘mental health’ day to recover from me..’g’.
Truth clears away a lot of old cobwebs and suspicions I didn’t want to think about…leaves the way clear to ..uh..move forward. (I now hate that phrase).
Jim has a new diary on McChrystal as does Siun at FDL.
It’s 1:00 a.m again here. Time flies. See ya tomorrow…
I don’t go there. For Siun, I’ll go there. I wonder if the hyjacker is there trying to interrupt? Have a nice day tomorrow.
“for Siun…”, my position as well. The mutterings of the hyjacker didn’t really make sense to me. I colored him gone long ago.
@87: I found it at several places, mostly by Googling his father’s name (General Herbert J. McChrystal). Give me some time to review my notes and bookmarks – hope I can find the links again.
Where did you find the information on Mc Chrystal? Inquiring mind wants to know..’g’. The hyjacker was late to the party, poor thing.
See my #64 here at Siun’s diary.
Blue, you’d do better to just search under the names of the parents. There’s lots of reading required to find a nugget here and there. You’re much better at that than I am and can judge for yourself what’s wheat and what’s chaff. Right now I’m chasing a weird account of his being a part of what is called the Whitehouse Murder Inc. (Cheney’s) responsible for assassinations in Lebannon etc..will post about it later either here or at Siun’s spot.
I found the following excerpt here:
Going now to search on Genl Herbert McChrystal’s life and career.
Brutal and tragic, yes, but stupid? No, just good business expansion for him and others in his line of work.
Too funny..
*******
reply
markfromireland October 4th, 2009 at 11:31 pm
21
In response to fairleft @ 11 (show text)
Stick around, you’ll find that Maqaquerman has a habit of deliberately making things up (as well as well his habit of name calling). I’m not quite sure how old he is in troll years but it probably doesn’t really matter as most of the people here whom he attempts to pester use him as a foil to advance their arguments.