Comments on: McChrystal’s secret strategy http://snarkmarket.com/2010/5746 The stomping grounds of Tim Carmody, Robin Sloan and Matt Thompson. It's a long-running conversation about media, journalism, technology, cities, culture, design, books, music, movies, the future and the past. Fri, 10 Feb 2012 01:58:56 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1 By: Tim Carmody http://snarkmarket.com/2010/5746/comment-page-1#comment-11737 Tim Carmody Thu, 24 Jun 2010 02:39:10 +0000 http://snarkmarket.com/?p=5746#comment-11737 You're forgetting about Andrew Jackson, Zachary Taylor, William Henry Harrison, and Rutherford B Hayes -- in short, the bad/unmemorable/influential but quite possibly evil ones. (Jackson deserves his own category.) Plus Benjamin Harrison and Teddy Roosevelt, who were colonels. But the way I take Andrew's remark (I don't suppose to speak for what he meant by it) is that, in a way, to be a Fox News commentator is BETTER than being an Republican Presidential candidate. Who wants to be Mitt Romney, really -- always raising money, looking for issues, worrying about the illusion of competence or the implications of what you say? Especially when you can make serious bank, be treated with more deference, have more influence, have more fun, and still be perpetually taken seriously as a <em>possible</em> candidate (you don't even have to ever actually run) working as a commentator/"journalist"? I'd take that gig in a second. You’re forgetting about Andrew Jackson, Zachary Taylor, William Henry Harrison, and Rutherford B Hayes — in short, the bad/unmemorable/influential but quite possibly evil ones. (Jackson deserves his own category.) Plus Benjamin Harrison and Teddy Roosevelt, who were colonels.

But the way I take Andrew’s remark (I don’t suppose to speak for what he meant by it) is that, in a way, to be a Fox News commentator is BETTER than being an Republican Presidential candidate. Who wants to be Mitt Romney, really — always raising money, looking for issues, worrying about the illusion of competence or the implications of what you say? Especially when you can make serious bank, be treated with more deference, have more influence, have more fun, and still be perpetually taken seriously as a possible candidate (you don’t even have to ever actually run) working as a commentator/“journalist”? I’d take that gig in a second.

]]> By: Saheli http://snarkmarket.com/2010/5746/comment-page-1#comment-11734 Saheli Thu, 24 Jun 2010 00:39:00 +0000 http://snarkmarket.com/?p=5746#comment-11734 Eisenhower, Grant, and Washington were the three presidents who rose to prominence as generals, and those were all wars that the bulk of the voting public was much more involved in. I could have seen Petraeus making such a move back in the day, because he was so relentlessly portrayed as the general who takes care of his troops, but McChrystal? He seems destined to be the callous, loud, Fox version of Wesley Clarke. Eisenhower, Grant, and Washington were the three presidents who rose to prominence as generals, and those were all wars that the bulk of the voting public was much more involved in. I could have seen Petraeus making such a move back in the day, because he was so relentlessly portrayed as the general who takes care of his troops, but McChrystal? He seems destined to be the callous, loud, Fox version of Wesley Clarke.

]]> By: Howard Weaver http://snarkmarket.com/2010/5746/comment-page-1#comment-11710 Howard Weaver Wed, 23 Jun 2010 01:56:42 +0000 http://snarkmarket.com/?p=5746#comment-11710 Occam. Occam.

]]> By: Tim Carmody http://snarkmarket.com/2010/5746/comment-page-1#comment-11709 Tim Carmody Wed, 23 Jun 2010 01:17:00 +0000 http://snarkmarket.com/?p=5746#comment-11709 Right. Like Billy Crudup in <em>Almost Famous</em>! Right. Like Billy Crudup in Almost Famous!

]]> By: vanderleun http://snarkmarket.com/2010/5746/comment-page-1#comment-11708 vanderleun Wed, 23 Jun 2010 00:15:54 +0000 http://snarkmarket.com/?p=5746#comment-11708 It's also worth entertaining the possibility that the president is a malicious man who does not even have your best interests at heart. It’s also worth entertaining the possibility that the president is a malicious man who does not even have your best interests at heart.

]]> By: Andrew http://snarkmarket.com/2010/5746/comment-page-1#comment-11707 Andrew Tue, 22 Jun 2010 23:57:31 +0000 http://snarkmarket.com/?p=5746#comment-11707 And if you're the one guy responsible for a big, giant war and you can see that your strategy is failing all around you... What's a good exit strategy? As a military man you can't resign your commission or step down from your post (Teddy Roosevelt famously put an Army Engineer in charge of the Panama Canal because he wanted somebody who couldn't quit on him). Why not put it on the President? And couldn't you argue McChrystal already tried to get fired with his 40K troops stunt? Diabolical, if you're right. Though this does seem to play right into the portrait Hastings paints of McChrystal: a self-fulfilling prophecy of being the guy who revels in making bone-headed decisions that anger his superiors because he's always been the guy that angers his superiors. Overtaken by his own legend. And if you’re the one guy responsible for a big, giant war and you can see that your strategy is failing all around you… What’s a good exit strategy? As a military man you can’t resign your commission or step down from your post (Teddy Roosevelt famously put an Army Engineer in charge of the Panama Canal because he wanted somebody who couldn’t quit on him). Why not put it on the President? And couldn’t you argue McChrystal already tried to get fired with his 40K troops stunt?

Diabolical, if you’re right. Though this does seem to play right into the portrait Hastings paints of McChrystal: a self-fulfilling prophecy of being the guy who revels in making bone-headed decisions that anger his superiors because he’s always been the guy that angers his superiors. Overtaken by his own legend.

]]>