I daresay Tom Ricks (yes, Tom Ricks) is being too kind to Max Boot. The man is obviously a raving lunatic:
Tillman’s parents and numerous others accused the Army of a cover-up designed to protect its own image. There may be an element of truth here, but so what? In addition to protecting the Army, Tillman’s superior officers were also protecting his own reputation. Much better to die at the hands of the enemy, after all, than at the hands of one’s own mates.
Actually, the “so what” is that the Army intentionally lied about his death to turn him into some larger-than-life hero. It did nothing to “protect” his image—and in fact the revelations of the true circumstances of his death have made his image stronger, not the other way around. It is difficult to understand why or how Boot thinks it was okay to lie about Pat Tillman.
And since time immemorial commanders have been tidying up accounts of soldiers’ deaths to spare the feelings of their families.
Ahh, yes, so sparing the gruesome details of a truthful account of a battlefield death is morally equivalent to deliberately lying about how and why a man died at the hands of his own men.
Just disgusting. Despite his weasel words (being sorry for a father blaming you for covering up his son’s death is not exactly “taking responsibility”) on the subject at the hearing today, General McChrystal still owes the Tillman family a full accounting of why his entire chain of command chose to lie. Unless, that is, you’re a lie-loving Max Boot:
Personally I would give Tillman’s commanders a medal — not a dressing down — for trying to prettify this typically terrible incident that occurred in the fog of war.
It’s called lying, Boot, and lying for the most petty of reasons: image. Everyone touched by Tillman’s death is worse off not because it happened but because the U.S. Army chose to lie about it.
Gah.
This post was written by...
Joshua Foust – author of 1771 posts on Registan.net.
Joshua Foust is a Fellow at the American Security Project and the author of Afghanistan Journal: Selections from Registan.net. His research focuses primarily on Central and South Asia. Joshua is a correspondent for The Atlantic and a columnist for PBS Need to Know. Joshua appears regularly on the BBC World News, Aljazeera, and international public radio. Joshua is also a regular contributor to Foreign Policy’s AfPak Channel, and his writing has appeared in the New York Times, Reuters, and the Christian Science Monitor.
{ 11 comments }
Wow! It’s so flamingly histrionic, I almost have to wonder if Boot is just looking for attention. I can’t believe that made it past an editor…
“Hey boss, just finished up that McChrystal piece”
“I saw it. Are you sure he should get a medal for lying?”
“Sure, that’d be funny.”
“And going after Pat Tillman’s family?”
“Yeah, fuck them”
“All I needed to hear! Posted!”
This is absolutely awful. I don’t see what anyone gains by lying about stuff like this. If you’re absolutly Machivelian about this, just think about what happens when the lie comes out in the media. Oh, right. This is what happens.
Boot’s position is ludicrous.
McChrystal should have righted the situation regarding the circumstances of Tillman’s death instead of going along with what he saw at the time as highly questionable official reporting. No argument. That would have been the stand-up thing to have done and his parents are owed the truth.
That said, we only care though, because Tillman was a sports celebrity prior to volunteering. How many other generals have similar friendly fire screw ups on their watch with non-famous casualties we never hear about? I would guess upwards of 80 % of those commanding combat operations for any length of time. Maybe more. How many gas station quickie mart clerks and GED holder unknowns were accidently killed like
Tillman in the last seven years? Normal ratios are about 8 % of combat deaths ( the Army claims less than 1 % – I’m not sure that is credible). That’s a lot of unsung soldiers.
I’m also rather cynical that most of the folks raising this issue actually cared one whit for Pat Tillman 5 minutes before McChrystal was nominated to run the Afghan war.
Zen, you’re right that this is visible because of Tillman’s celebrity. However, with the exception of Jessica Lynch, those soldiers’ deaths are normally not spun out into these elaborate lies of valiant firefights to the death. Boot is right that often commanders soften the details of their soldiers’ deaths when discussing it with the families, and that is understandable. But if you’re suggesting that the Army is lying about 8% of its casualties as part of a PR campaign effort to shore up support for the war they the entire chain up at least to Rumsfeld did with Tillman… well, that’s a much bigger accusation.
Say what you want about everyone else. I agree there is a large degree of angry hacking about it. But we’ve been covering Tillman on this blog and on my previous blog for many years—including our dismay at how the Army concealed is death. Hell, the only reason I knew anything at all about McChrystal was because of that—otherwise, I hadn’t ever read closely enough into Camp Nama and TF 6-26 to know he was involved there.
But the bigger point about fratricide is well taken. Hell, that’s how Michael Kelly died in Iraq—a freak accident. The Army, however, did not lie about it for their PR campaign. There is a big difference between those circumstances, you know?
Boot’s claims are shameful. He speaks like a man who doesn’t give a rat’s ass about soldiers or their families. Truly pathetic.
Does anyone have information — hard or soft — about vets’ view of this debate (how to report “friendly fire” deaths)?
Are there any vets reading; I’d like to know your views.
Fabius
I’ll give you my view. I was ETT may05/06 all over 201st corps, now ending my PMT mission in Paktika.
I stated earlier that I didn’t have a problem with the awarding of the silver star to Ranger Pat Tillman. I am biased.
No one needed to come out with a second by second accounting, including the particular wound pattern and estimated time of death and suffering of the particular action; but they damn sure do have a moral responsibility and requirement to come out with the truth.
The big problem about thinking it is ok to lie, this time, because it seems to protect people from a bad situation is that the very logic used in that situation is rampant throughout upper levels of command to protect all manner of things, least of all their careers.
The Army is not only lying to “outsiders” it is lying to itself in after actions reports and therefore doesn’t have to face some facts that they’d rather not have to deal with. The whole mess surrounding operation anaconda points to this and things still haven’t changed. Red wings was a mess, the forces involved in that still have much to answer for, not the men on the ground, but those tasked with monitoring the battle, planning contingencies and executing “oh shit” plans and operations. I am not aware of any action taken to fix several things that were bad bad during that whole thing. I’m not even sure they were addressed in any report because when I operated in that area in early 06 there were still things being done as routine and things being ignored that were direct contributors to many deaths of good men.
If I’m out there, and shoot dead one of my men, it has to be looked at. It has to be done in a sober way by professionals familiar with situations on the ground, outside the wire; not a review panel at BAF. It has to be done in a way that some good might come out of a bad situation.
The Rangers are definitely spun up troops, but they are highly trained and skilled professionals. These guys are not bench warmers that found themselves in a fight in which they were unprepared. Something bad obviously happened and the Army OWES it to Ranger Tillman, the US Army Rangers and the US Army to identify what that was and hopefully educate and prevent something like that in the future; that of course, if it is preventable in the future, sometimes all the stars and planets align and things just go sideways, either way, the truth, as best it is possible to know, needs to be told.
First time I’ve ever answered to the name “vet,” (ANA 205 Corps mentor, 08-09). But I’d say you have 3 priorities in this situation. All possible fratricide incidents, like all fatal accidents in the military, need to be investigated first, to prevent recurrence. And the families deserve to know as much as possible, first if possible if they’re ready to hear it, limited only by legitimate OpSec concerns. Any any soldier found to have acted recklessly or out of malice needs to be disciplined.
The public’s need to know the details is not a priority per se, but a likely consequence of any or all of the above. So long as all of the above can be shown to have been done, they will generally conclude in the final analysis that their interests were served, too. But anything the military does to obstruct any of the first 3 priorities (like lying to the family or giving out medals before the investigation is complete) would be wrong.
General McChrystal should not be confirmed as a four star general. First, he’s got to learn how to lie better. The first rule of lying is to stick to your story. Don’t change it, keep it simple.
I’ve simply taken the time to look at the written record of the past investigations. McChrystal’s testimony yesterday at the Senate hearing just dug a deeper hole. Lies that should “hoist him by his own petard”:
1.) McChrystal said that he first learned of suspected fratricide and told of the 15-6 investigation after returning back to Afghanistan from a meeting in Qatar with General Abizaid (CENTCOM) on about April 23rd. But, a comparision of testimony shows that McChrystal, Nixon, and/or Abiziad lied about when they learned about fratricide:
During the Jones 15-6 McChrystal said that he “was in Qatar when I was told, about a day or two after the incident …”. [OK, that matches the 23rd].
But General Abizaid told Congress on 8-01-07 that “on about the 23rd, Gen McChrystal called me and told me that CPL Tillman had been killed in combat and that the circumstances his death were heroic.” Further, during his DoD IG interview that “Gen McChrystal informed him of CPL Tillman’s death while they were in Qatar in a meeting …. he received no details and did not know friendly fire was suspected.” [So which is it? heroic or no details?] So we’re to believe McChrystal didn’t tell Abizaid about fratricide that same day while they were together in Qatar!
But, the DoD IG Chronology (Appendix B) states that after COL Nixon was told of possible fratricide and the 15-6 on the 23rd, Nixon only told McChrystal of the “death” [no fratricide] of Tillman and then McChrystal told Abizaid only of Tillman’s “death”. Someone was lying during their interviews with the DoD Inspector General. Either Nixon lied if he said that he only passed “death” to McChrystal or McChrystal lied by saying he was only told of death on the 23rd! And Abzaid or McChrystal lied; how can McChrystal learn of fratricide on the 23rd and only tell Abizaid of “death” the same day?
2.) McChrystal testified that he waited for the outcome of the investigation before making conclusions, he “wanted some level of truth” before he sent the information on:
There was never anything “potential” or “suspected” about Tillman’s friendly fire death. Many of the Rangers on the ground knew immediately what had happened. On the 23rd word was passed up “70% sure” to by the CSM to COL Nixon. And on the 24th, the initial investigating officer CPT Scott passed on verbal confirmation (“I’m certain, I’m sure”) to LTC Bailey, who then called COL Nixon (McChrystal was next in the chain of command). The Army knew of confirmed FF two days after Tillman’s death! Are we believe Nixon never told McChrystal of confirmation during the following days they were working together on the Silver Star?
3.) General Wallace cleared McChrystal of wrongdoing because he only signed off on the Silver Star and had no reasonable basis to question recomendations send up from the field:
But, during Tuesday’s hearing, McChrystal said he sat down with the Ranger officers (Nixon, Kauzerlich, Hodne, Bailey) and went over Tillman’s actions on a whiteboard to satisfy himself that Tillman’s actions merited a Silver Star! McChrystal wasn’t just signing a piece of paper that dropped on his desk!
4.) McChrystal said that the Silver Star cititation wasn’t well written and that he didn’t read it close enough to catch that it could “imply” Tillman wasn’t killed by friendly fire:
Absolute bull. I encourage anyone to look at the IG report and check out the Appendices. The IG concluded that anyone reading the citation would assume Tillman was killed by enemey fire. In fact, Maj Hodne even said that he edited the narrrative to ensure it didn’t mention friendly fire! And the damning fact that the witness statements were altered by “someone in the approval chain” to remove references to friendly fire (ie Nixon, McChrystal, Kauzerlich). The IG never bothered to really try to determine who did that.
4.) McChrystal was praised by the Secretary of the Army for acting “reasonably and quickly” by sending his “timely” P4 memo to alert his superiors on the 29th:
There was nothing quick about it. Even McChrystal said he learned of suspected fratricide on the 23rd. Yet he didn’t send out his P4 until the 29th? How is waiting four to six days “timely”? [and as I pointed out, he actually have verbal confirmation of fratricide on the 24th!] Of course, in reality McChrystal told Abizaid on the 23rd, and then it was passed onward to the Secretary of Defense and White House.
Yesterday’s Senate hearing was just the final layer of fertilizer upon the high mound of Army and Congressional “investigations” of Tillman’s death. It’s a travesty of justice that Pat Tillman’s family were handed a tarnished Silver Star, while General McChrystal will be confirmed, promoted to the highest rank in the Army, and handed his fourth star.
SSG Co. “F” (Ranger) 425th Infantry 1983 – 1991
Fabius: Since you’ve solicited my two cents as a vet…the absolute truth should be told in all military reports. This blog post addressed the moral aspect of the Tillman cover-up, but far more important to me is the military’s ability to learn from it and modify its behavior accordingly. Actually, I was rather demoralized by the zero-defect mentality of the Marine Corps while I was on AD. You can’t learn from what you haven’t done wrong.
Great comments! Thanks for posting them.