The Captain's Journal » In Defense of Michael Yon: An Open Letter to Milbloggers

In Defense of Michael Yon: An Open Letter to Milbloggers

BY Herschel Smith

14 years, 7 months ago

My friend Michael Yon has had some difficulties of late. From his Facebook page, an embed has been halted. He has also expressed deep reservations about the senior leadership in Afghanistan, weighing in with some fairly hard hitting prose (pieced together from Facebook and NRO):

Today, I do not trust McChrystal anymore than some people trust the New York Times, Obama or Bush. If McChrystal could be trusted, I would go back to my better life. McChrystal is a great killer but this war is above his head. He must be watched … Crazy Monkeys: Senior Public Affairs people often make me think of crazy monkeys. (Like some monkeys I’ve seen in India.) They break into the cockpit and start flipping switches with no idea what the switches do. They keep doing it until something breaks or you beat them back. And just when you think you’ve beaten …them all back, another monkey slips in. (This time by name of Admiral Smith.)

The disembed from McChrytal’s top staff (meaning from McChrystal himself) is a very bad sign. Sends chills that McChrystal himself thinks we are losing the war. McChrystal has a history of covering up. This causes concern that McChrystal might be misleading SecDef and President. Are they getting the facts?

Next time military generals talk about poor press performance in Afghanistan, please remember that McChrystal and crew lacked the dexterity to handle a single, unarmed writer. 100,000 troops — probably that many contractors — and no room for one writer. How can McChrystal handle the Taliban?

To make matters worse, it seems that some prominent folks in the Milblogging community are taking Michael to task for what they consider bad form. Uncle Jimbo (Jim Hanson at Blackfive) is indignant.

Now he is telling us that Gen. McChrystal is over his head and needs to be watched? I’m sorry but if I have to choose between the eminently qualified and competent McChrystal and Yon, there’s not even a question … I can’t believe he is questioning McChrystal’s character. That’s BS and low. He has claimed he was told there was no room for him to embed, well that is not what I heard. It appears he was again removed for violating the embed rules. At some point you need to own up to the fact that it’s not the rest of the world…..it’s you. That point is now.

Disclaimer: I have not embedded…ever. I am not going to embed because I don’t want to. I like being in the rear w/ the gear. I have plenty of stamps on my passport, have toured the most craptastic places on the planet, and now don’t deploy anywhere w/o room service. I respect what Michael Yon has done, I just think he is acting like a jackass.

Jim links others in the Milblogging community who are discussing Michael’s most recent words. Milblogging.com holds that Michael owes us some facts, and Laughing Wolf at Blackfive also weighs in negatively. I have never been embedded either (although not for lack of trying). But I sent a son off to war, and I defy anyone to tell me that it’s any less difficult to deploy a son to combat than it is to deploy yourself. Jim Hanson has a right to weigh in – and so do I.

I have a history of Milblogging that is marked with potholes as well, and have taken on some staff and flag level officers. Two years ago I took on General Rodriguez for his fanciful claims about the Taliban being in such trouble that they couldn’t and wouldn’t mount a spring offensive in Afghanistan. I pointed out even before the Taliban offensive began that their singular focus at that time would be the interdiction of logistical lines, and recommended that we engage the Caucasus region for a Northern route into Afghanistan (we are only belatedly coming around to my counsel). I was right, of course, but you make no friends in the chain of command when you claim that your own analysis is better than that of Army intelligence (and a flag level officer), whether true or not.

Next, recall that I parodied the notion that an internal investigation into Marine deaths in the Kunar Province having to do with denial of artillery support because of rules of engagement would in any way ever hold the purveyor of that ROE – General McChrystal – responsible. Again, one wins no friends with such hard hitting prose. Better yet. General Rodriguez and General McChrystal are close friends. I’m sure that neither one appreciated my comments concerning the other.

I have very specific reasons to believe that my hard hitting style, my critical nature, and my cataloging of the various blunders in both Iraq and Afghanistan have cost me readership and standing within the Milblogging community. Beyond that, there are the cold relations with high level officers. Jim Hanson almost immediately received a response from General McChrystal in response to his letter concerning rules of engagement. I had to send his public affairs officer a letter three different times to get a response to a OPCON question from – you guessed it – the PAO rather than McChrystal.

All of this points to the question of what obligations we have as Milbloggers (beyond operational security and other basic issues). I can’t speak for all Milbloggers, but I can speak for myself. I am not trying to turn a discussion about Michael Yon into one about myself, but I am trying to relate. I have a moral obligation to support the warriors we deploy to do our violence for us (and that includes our warriors in the chain of command). I have an obligation to tell the truth, and I have done that as best as I know. I have an obligation to fulfill my commitments: I have told Michael Yon that I would pray for his safety, and I have done that.

I am under absolutely no obligation whatsoever to support any particular personality, any strategy, any tactic, technique or procedure, any set of rules, or any doctrine. I will do the best I can to hold those in the military and also those who fund them accountable. This is oftentimes unpleasant, but I will issue no complaints. I have chosen my path.

Similarly for those who know Michael, he spoke against those who said that Operation Iraqi Freedom was lost, or that it was won; he said that Afghanistan would be problematic even before I did (he saw it first hand); he talked about the job that the British were doing in Basra even when I was lamenting the poor strategy; he has also reported on problems with allies in Afghanistan. In short, Michael Yon has been an honest broker of information and analysis, whether pleasant or not, whether his analysis agreed with my own or not. Perhaps I feel a kinship with him even though I have never met him.

Either way, Jim Hanson sets two people in juxtaposition – General McChrystal and Michael Yon, and says that he’ll take McChrystal. I’m not at all troubled by the dilemma. I refuse to play. But I am particularly troubled by the notion, even if faintly present, that I am somehow obligated to march in lock step with the senior officers. If I am not obligated to march to their beat, then neither is Michael Yon. He can give account for himself and his own words. He will take his lumps at times, and if he broke some rule or other (as Hanson charges), then he will suffer whatever consequences there are for that infraction. But as a journalist there is no reason to expect that he will be any less critical of things than say the New York Times, albeit for different reasons.

Jim Hanson tells us that he believes differently concerning Michael’s recent embed experience (“ … that is not what I heard”). This is all well and good. He can believe what he wants. I generally have a high bar for information I use or purvey on the blog. I wasn’t there, I don’t know anyone who was, and even if I did know someone who was there, I also know that the story can become muddled in translation. What happened to Michael is his business, not mine. As for whether McChrystal “needs to be watched,” I’ll pass on that and let Michael explain his prose. I have expressed very detailed disagreement with General McChrystal’s ROE and what I see as his micromanagement of the campaign. I don’t retract or apologize for a single word of my prose.

Michael will continue in my estimation to be the Ernie Pyle of our generation and this incident will pass. It’s also my estimation that these open letters to Michael are a lot of sound and fury signifying nothing. We Milbloggers have better ways to spend our time than cannibalize our own. The most important thing to come out of the affair is another chance to say what we all know but tend to forget when it comes to the nation and military that we love. I am under no obligation to shill for the chain of command. Neither is Michael – and neither are you.

General McChrystal,Military Blogging

Comments

On April 19, 2010 at 11:35 pm, nbpundit said:

As most of the blowing of smoke are from those who are not embedded or have been, how would anyone know more about the termination than Yon?
Uncle Jimbo knows’ what differently? And if so, why didn’t he specify?

I will continue to read and pray for Mr.Yon.

On April 20, 2010 at 3:52 am, jj said:

I totally disagree w/ General McChrystal’s ROE and micromanagement of the campaign as well.

On April 20, 2010 at 5:49 am, MarkA said:

I no longer read Jim “Uncle Jimbo” Hanson (or Matthew “Blackfive” Burden for that matter) and have not for quite some time. Hanson particularly diminished his credibility with me multiple times over the past 12 months with his posts at Ace of Spades and Blackfive. He did a similar rant on Ralph Peters a few months ago and I stopped reading him since. I’m sorry but if I have to choose between the eminently qualified and competent Yon and Hanson, there’s not even a question. When I want the straight story on what’s going on, I read Yon & Smith, not Hanson and Burden.

On April 20, 2010 at 7:03 am, andrewlubin said:

I think the issue is more of Michael Yon and journalistic accuracy. If a journalist with a good reputation and large following feels compelled to call Gen McChrystal a liar and claim he’s misleading President Obama…then he’d best have some serious proof behind such a statement. Otherwise Yon slides back from being a journalist to a ranting blogger, which does discredit both to himself and to us all.

On April 20, 2010 at 7:08 am, andrewlubin said:

@nbpundit: re: Yon’s embed being terminated: the Brits threw him out last Fall for taking and publishing photos they requested (for OpSec reasons) he not take, as well as prematurely publishing names of KIA’s. He not only got himself banned, but they forbade entry to Camp Bastian to all other American journalists (like me). When we embed, there are a variety of rules to which we must sign our agreement – and Yon’s repeatedly and deliberately violated them.

On April 20, 2010 at 8:55 am, Herschel Smith said:

Commenter rykehaven has been banned and his comments deleted – not for being negative concerning Mr. Yon, but for repeated use of profanity on my blog.

On April 20, 2010 at 9:05 am, JewishOdysseus said:

Great insight from TCJ, as usual! Herschel, I particularly valued your impromptu “credo,” which really cd be an oath for all milbloggers:
“I have a moral obligation to support the warriors we deploy to do our violence for us (and that includes our warriors in the chain of command). I have an obligation to tell the truth, and I have done that as best as I know. I have an obligation to fulfill my commitments: I have told Michael Yon that I would pray for his safety, and I have done that.

It does NOT say “be humble” or “show deference” or “show respect.” These are all great character traits, but let’s be honest, how many ambitious entrepreneurial blogger journalists have them?

Rykehaven makes some good fact-based critique on Yon’s misreporting from Basra. Let’s posit the man got it wrong. But it really was not fair to attack him for not reporting Maliki’s capture of the town, since, reviewing Yon’s blog archive from 3/08-4/08, he left the country about the day it began, and was on his book tour as soon as he got back to the States.

I’ve never seen any great journalist not blow a few (and I’m NOT talking about the modern lamestream media morons who basically blow them ALL), but for good people to swing haymakers at Michael Yon because he’s too popular on the Net or blasted a too-important figure…Huh?

Herschel put it exactly right: “We Milbloggers have better ways to spend our time than cannibalize our own.”

PS: Not trying to claim I am a milblogger, just quoting Herschel accurately.

On April 20, 2010 at 10:04 am, carol said:

I met Uncle Jimbo at the milblog conference last year and he was quite scathing about Michael Yon even then.

I met Michael Christmas before last and he talks like he writes. Very entertaining, straight, harsh and intelligent.

IMO Michael singlehandedly changed the narrative of the Iraq war, starting in May 2005. From that point to now, the American press has lost significant circulation and the broadcast news has lost vast numbers of viewers. What Michael did via his blog will be assessed and taught for centuries to come.

It is now “cool” amongst educated, clever teenagers to disparage all mainstream news and biased teachers. Here comes the revolution.

If Michael has deep reservations about this McChrystal person then so do I and so should the powers that be.

Plus – big thank you for deleting that drivel, I didn’t notice the profanity, just thought twas bs and boring.

On April 20, 2010 at 10:14 am, Warbucks said:

“Rick: How can you close me up? On what grounds?
“Captain Renault: I’m shocked, shocked to find that gambling is going on in here!
[a croupier hands Renault a pile of money]
“Croupier: Your winnings, sir.
“Captain Renault: [sotto voce] Oh, thank you very much.
[aloud]
“Captain Renault: Everybody out at once!”

Hey! We are trying to run the perfect war here. Mil-bloggers that operate from Vanity Fair (http://www.vanityfair.com/) morality ….. it does not matter what they argue about as long as they Ping-back my name …. are fated to rise to a greater destiny than humble and meek. A book on the controversy would surely be in order.

But don’t wait too long. The public soon forgets.

Marge, hand me the channel changer…

On April 20, 2010 at 10:24 am, Wind Rider said:

I can say I’ve actually met Jimbo, have yet to enjoy Mr. Yon’s company in person – and I’ve gotta take exception with Jimbo’s take on this one. I’ve followed Yon on and off for quite some time, and have found him to be a reliable and honest broker of the good, the bad, and even the personally embarrassing – and not for just others – the incident of the picked up weapon during the firefight in the alley comes to mind. With his critical reporting of the not so glowing and shiny aspects of what’s going on, on the ground, in theater, I’m not surprised he’s probably not on a few folks’ Easter Card list. Unless Jimbo can back this up with something, I’d have to go with Michael’s consistent stream of reportage for the past few months – including the published correspondence he had with the PAO honchos on the matter.

Coin check, Jimbo, you holdin?

On April 20, 2010 at 12:21 pm, Warbucks said:

“As a general rule, you don’t cross the mob, the IRS or Apple (Computer) without suffering some consequences,” (John Murrell – Good Morning Silicon Valley).

Perhaps we might consider adding to the “don’t cross list”, Commanding Generals? ……. N-a-a-a-a-h!

Better you give out two titles: One status is Embed (restricted access) the other status is “In-Bed” (open access to all areas).

On April 20, 2010 at 1:26 pm, byshaw said:

As a journalist (and combat veteran) currently embedded with US forces in Afghanistan, I have found that roughly 95% of the troops on the ground in no way believe in their mission, have no confidence that their efforts will bring about lasting change to Afghan security, stability, governance, or a decreased influence of radicalism. In truth, they fight simply to stay alive and want nothing more than to go home. A recent quote:

“I joined to defend and fight for the United States, but now I feel like I’ve been tasked out to fight for Afghanistan. Yet the people don’t even care, and make no effort whatsoever to help us help them. They don’t WANT help.”

The nature of freedom is that those who are unwilling to fight for it personally will never realize it. As it stands, nothing is more important to Afghans than survival, even at the expense of all self-dignity, nationalism, tribalism, and whatever ideals may at one time surpassed the will to simply “get by.”

I have also discovered that if I publicize these findings (that literally 95% of troops don’t believe in their own mission), the Soldiers who I cite will be charged, potentially relieved of command, and I will be asked to disembed from these units.

As a recent example, I filmed approximately 75 minutes of combat footage, knowingly exposed myself to concentrated enemy fire, and learned two days ago that if I post this footage, the Soldiers on film will be charged and/or relieved for uniform violations, improper wear of personal protective equipment (ballistic glasses, fire-retardant gloves, etc), and that low-level commanders have already begun this process. In an attempt to preserve the careers of the Soldiers I am trying to advocate, I am unable to tell (or show) the US public what they’re experiencing and what they think of it. The military only wants good news to flow from embedded journalists – not facts.

The reality is this: the current tactical directive leaves US troops on the ground increasingly vulnerable, often unsupported by air assets or indirect fire, and as a consequence their personal mission is to keep each other alive and come home. Under this current “soft war” policy, the war cannot be won. After all, Pashtun Islamic culture sees any sort of kindness and mercy as a weakness – and immediately exploit it. The Taliban, knowing the restrictive nature of the current ROE/Tactical directive, use it against US forces regularly.

US troops feel abandoned by their chains of command, bilked by military recruiters, and participants in a conflict that history will not treat kindly. They will return to the US and to civilian life full of disappointment, bitterness at their commanders, and unwilling to serve again. And military commanders here are doing their very best to ensure that this never reaches the public. In their pursuit of mission accomplishment, they have altogether neglected their second purpose: troop welfare. The former, however, will never be realized without an equally dedicated concentration on the latter.

I invite comments and criticism at byshaw@gmail.com.
Photos from my current embed can be found online at http://picasaweb.google.com/byshaw
My own website is http://byshaw.com

On April 20, 2010 at 5:21 pm, Bruce said:

I also gave up on Burden and Hanson long ago. I find the “ultimate moral authority” of these guys solely due to their military experience more than a bit tiresome. Mike Yon is a highly respected journalist whose creds are, in my opinion, above reproach. If Hanson feels – as he implies – that Mike violated some rule .. let him state that rule, and how it was broken. To say “he broke the rules…” and leave it at that is a trick the liberal press has been playing with us for too long. Personally – I have a problem with any senior military official appointed by the Obama administration, and that includes dimbulb Mullen.

On April 20, 2010 at 6:09 pm, Kaf said:

I know I have absolutely no cred being new. That said, this is my email exchange with the PAO on April 11th.

Myself:

I support your embed program to rotate in as many voices out there as
possible to prevent biases from a narrow perspective from forming.
Yon likes to play to his fan base and the fact that he left your email
there is evidence of how he ‘plays’ regarding authority. Beneath the
veneer of ‘objective’ reporting is a man who resents any line of
command/social structure. Hence his attack on your higher ups in his
face book comments. His particularly vile contempt of Canadians shows
his propaganda reporting wrapped in a thin layer of ‘telling it’ as it
is, ie, what he deems as truth shall never, ever, ever, ever, be
contradicted. Anyway, hope the case of shooting the messenger isn’t too
brutal.

Regards,

………………….

Response:
Thank you for the email.

I try to be unbiased and provide an opportunity to every journalist
possible. Good news or bad news, the people back home (Canada, U.S.,
U.K., etc.) deserve to get there information from as many sources we can
facilitate.

Ironically, there were no higher ups that influenced this, just me.

Have a great day.

V/R
Brian DeSantis

……………..

It is clear what my observations have been, and I can quote where he disses the Canadians in his facebook. Also the strange, convoluted logic of why BG Menard is ‘to blame’, etc.. The is a pattern here.

Occurance: Authority makes a decision or has an affect that is not to his liking.

Outcome: Revenge agenda, higher ups to blame (ego?), conspiracy theories and ad hominem attacks that border on slander.

What does it matter? It seemed like an enormous amount, at one time, but repeated exposure to the same over reaction showing the motivations (wounded pride/sense of entitlement/over inflated vision of one’s influence….ie, ego) to his actions, diminish the value of his arguments and ultimately, his conclusions.

A pattern that throws a whole new light on his version of the British Media Ops, Airport security (he mentioned his indignation of a close female friend of his who had trouble at the airport prior to this happening), BG Menard (couldn’t go on his mission, as planned, because of the bridge), Canadian Newpapers, Canadian reporters, Spanish troops, Army PAO’s, to name a few,…right up to the President of the USA.

And NOW, according to his latest facebook – the milbloggers

“The milblogging community is largely a hurricane of hot air”

Michael Yon’s FB has been reduced, for me, to just an interesting and bordering on fascinating phenomena of what can be observed of bloggers and their loyal ‘groupthink’ fans in this new medium of communication….

…with great photos.

Kaf

On April 20, 2010 at 7:02 pm, exhelodrvr said:

Michael Yon has definitely done some great work. However, at times it becomes too much about “him”, and when it does, his work suffers. That seems to be what is happening here.

On April 20, 2010 at 7:25 pm, Axel said:

In the early years I was a huge fan of Yon’s, even would send a few bucks now and again. When he became famous I noticed a change, was turned off by some of his rants. However, I still read his work, and admire his guts and dedication. And yes, he is making a living by being an embed. So what? He doesn’t bore me w/photos by the pool side like some do.

With that said, it seems many are in an uproar over the McChrystal comment. I can see that McChrystal has changed, he isn’t the man that he used to be based solely on reading and tracking him through the media. I am not impressed w/what the man is doing in A-stan. No doubt Washington politics has everything to do w/this. So perhaps Yon is onto something, only time will tell. Certainly any person in the position of power should be watched no matter who they are. Give me Yon over the MSM media or military propaganda any day.

What I find disturbing is how the milblog community has attacked this man like vultures on roadkill. I find it appalling, it says a lot about who these people are. If there is a grievance or concern about Yon’s well-being from burn out express it in a private email. As a blog reader it’s not particularly relative, I am sure some would argue that. Mr. Yon is a peer, colleague, and fellow mil-blogger, whether it’s personal, (which it seems to be) or contempt, it is in poor taste for the entire milblog circle to jump on the Mike Yon has lost it band wagon w/verbal assaults and criticisms. There is an incredible amount of jealousy, ego, arrogance, and competition in the milblog world. It comes through on the internet, and it definitely comes through when meeting these people w/the exception of some. I attended one of their milblog conferences and felt like I was back in high-school. It’s more like a wannabe conference, an excuse to get together to party. The players really should just rent a beach house somewhere so they can drink and gloat about themselves and save the rest of us our cash.

Whether Yon brings it on himself or not, what the milblog community has done as a whole I find unsavory, definitely unbecoming to what is supposedly a unified group of people w/the mission of telling the truth about our Troops and the war. Bashing each other isn’t cool, at least publicly as a collective whole. Mike Yon is doing the walk, and not just the talk, whether you like his style, behavior, or not…he doesn’t deserve this crap. And he is entitled to his own opinions. He has brought us some amazing stories and photos from the front lines, I honor and appreciate him for that. He has made mistakes, but nothing like what the AP did w/the photos of LCPL Bernard. These milbloggers should look in the mirror w/their character attacks against Yon. On any given day the tides could turn and they could find themselves the next victim of the vultures.

And this danger girl chick posting everywhere, someone please reel her in, talk about your woman scorned. She is enjoying herself a bit too much and is quite tiring. I do believe it’s time to take the advice they give to Yon, take a break from milblogs.

On April 20, 2010 at 10:54 pm, REN said:

“…you make no friends in the chain of command when you claim that your own analysis is better than that of Army intelligence…”

You seem to be conflating the decisions of the battle space commanders with the analysis and reporting of Army Intelligence. Unless, of course, you meant the lower-case “intelligence” of those who actually do make the battle plans. Please take note the difference and you may keep a few more friends. =Þ

On April 20, 2010 at 11:57 pm, MeTooThen said:

Disclaimers:

I have never been in the military.

I have never been in combat.

I know nothing of the stress of fighting, killing, or having someone trying to kill me.

I have had many years experience treating individuals who have suffered from trauma, including but not limited to quite a few military veterans dating from WWII up to and including those who have recently returned from the current wars in the “sand box.”

With that said, and having followed Mr. Yon, on and off, for some time, I believe that there are several likely truths here.

1) Isolation for long periods of time in a combat zone, away from friends, family, lovers or intimates, can prove to be brutalizing and is not healthy psychologically, emotionally, or spiritually, and can lead to a great deal of loss, grief, bitterness, and rage.

2) Such continued isolation and reliance on oneself only for the purpose of ones own mission can lead to further conflict with those around you. Recall, Mr. Yon is working for himself, alongside the military, but he is not there to complete any military mission, only report on it.

3) These two sets of circumstance can prove highly problematic, and in a case like this, tact, judgment, perspective can be lost, and one may withdraw further into themselves for protection and self-preservation, further worsening matters or creating a vicious circle.

4) As noted above, and to paraphrase the former Sec Def, there are knowns, known unknowns, and unknown unknowns. Or as Paul Harvey called it, “The rest of the story.”

With all due respect, and with great respect for those who have served and to those who have embedded, I suggest that each and every one of us reserve judgment as to what is going on as we do not know what really went on – nor will we likely ever fully know what occurred in these situations cited (think of Rashamon.)

It has been suggested that there may be a component of “burn out” fueling some of the writing and opinions expressed by Mr. Yon and it has been recommended that he take time to recharge, reflect, etc. To that I would add take some time to heal.

Far away from the terrible and unspeakable horror that is war, I can only express my deep and abiding gratitude to all who serve on my behalf. To Mr. Yon I wish only for him to experience some much deserved peace and abiding comfort for a job well done, even if imperfect.

On April 21, 2010 at 12:43 am, OGolly said:

I am a former Army PAO. I agree wholeheartedly. I follow Michael Yon and wish him well in his efforts. No one should automatically trust a GO. Trust must be earned.

On April 22, 2010 at 9:40 am, Warbucks said:

“The lie is different at every level.”…. perhaps one of the deepest truths about world power ever given…. Attribution: anonymous “BlackOps”

I doubt if any of us writing here see the big picture. Nothing is what it seems and almost everything you think is true, is true at the level you see it.

On April 22, 2010 at 4:24 pm, byshaw said:

As of today, my photos, videos, and writing have been so closely monitored by the command that I have elected to remove all imagery for fear of jeopardizing the troops on the ground. Commanders are using the images and footage to threaten Article 15s for Soldiers photographed out of uniform, and also threatening to relieve platoon sergeants and first sergeants for allowing such things to happen. Professionally, I have been bound and gagged – that is unless I’m willing to burn an entire troop (or squadron) of Soldiers in the process of telling the US public what’s happening – which would be counterproductive.

My next step will be to file a formal complaint with commanders who use media resources to incriminate their own subordinates. This command, I have determined, is far more concerned with looking pretty than accomplishing their mission. I also think that, somehow, the US public needs to know about it.

byshaw@gmail.com

On April 23, 2010 at 9:50 am, Kaf said:

byshaw…I’m confused. You say on your facebook note ‘On Afghanistan’ written prior to going there,

>>Despite a heavy international presence and mindboggling sums of money dumped into the country, the likelihood of success is a subject of much international, domestic and dinner table debate. Military commanders are optimistic, but one must wonder if they are only saying as they have been directed to say. The US military, after all, does not practice democracy (i.e. free speech); it only defends it.<<

It seemed like you understood this about the military. Also, you say you are professionally bound and gagged. Seems like the objection to public view is that the physical image associats a specific recognizable unit with soldiers out of uniform, etc. What happened to oral accounts of events? Can your observations of events not be relayed this way – or was the uniform bit integral to the story.

Bottom line: I don't see the gag.

On April 24, 2010 at 9:06 am, Julianna said:

Oh Axel. You may think dangergirl is scorned, and that’s a typical male default position, but one could say the same about Yon whose opinion or ‘truth” about McChrystal changed after he was fired from his embed. ( see below for detailed example)

I don’t understand how Axel & Herschel and even Jules Crittenden will listen to all of Yon’s ugly truths and give Yon the complete benefit of the doubt when his ugly truths are about General Menard or McChrystal simply because they come from Yon; even as those “truths” have either been proven to be lies, as in the case of Menard, or merely the opinion of a scorned Yon who has once again been fired from his embed.

Had those same ugly “truths” about McChrystal come from a NYT Times reporter, particularly one who had just been fired from his embed, would Axel, Hershel, or any of Yon’s loyalists lend them the same veracity?

I agree that Blackfive and Jim live in this world of rarefied air, where they believe their shit don’t stink, but so does Yon. I read dangergirl’s comments on B5, and she was unabashedly attacked by Matt & others after she described to Matt exactly how Yon would react; yet she turned out to be right:

“Mike doesn’t care about the opinions of those who disagree with him or call him out on his lies and his irrational behavior. He doesn’t care about kind, respectful, supportive interventions. He spins all this to make everyone seem misguided at best, and a liar at worst — which is exactly what he did on his FB page when others tried a similar albeit smaller version of an “intervention” and which is what he’ll do with Matt and the millbloggers who participated in this intervention. ”

Matt believed he was doing a good decent thing by bringing together a group of his concerned milblogging friends to attempt an online intervention, but to many of the Yon loyalists it seems that these Milbloggers ambushed and gang rape Yon because of his comment about McChyrstal.

At least dangergirl was able to point out a long history of Yon’s irrational and unprofessional behavior.

And I don’t see how Axel can claim she was scorned (she made it clear she ended the friendship when Yon persisted with his lies about Canadian troops even before he made his false accusations about Menard) and yet not say the same of Yon’s sudden change of opinion about McChrystal after being fired from his embed. ( see Dangergirl’s excellent 1 to 1 comparison below)

I admit don’t like her “in your face” attitude – but I along with many others find her far more credible than Matt & Jim who harbor this “holier than thou’ attitude that borders on quiet arrogance, or than Yon’s fans who blindly hang onto his every word and go ballistic when anyone dares to question Yon’s veracity!

If its ok for Yon to question leaders like Menard and McChrystal, then why is NOT ok for the milblogging community to question Yon? Good for goose, not for gander? It was the milblogging community that wholeheartedly supported Yon and helped his “fame” grow. They rallied behind him during his fight with SHOCK Magazine and against the Army claiming ownership over his iconic photo. Surely they have a right to question his integrity?

Perhaps you’ll accept the intelligent reasoned and well thought piece regarding Yon from Cassandra. She’s another woman and I challenge you to call her scorned. She make the same points as dangergirl and Matt and Jim, but far more eloquently and with much less emotion and none of the ‘tude’

http://www.villainouscompany.com/vcblog/archives/2010/04/burden_of_proof.html

“Michael Yon is purportedly a professional journalist. As such, shouldn’t he be held to some elementary standards of professionalism? But more importantly, how much sense does it make to extend the benefit of the doubt to Mr. Yon for what amounts to unsourced and unsupported allegations of criminal misconduct against a career soldier?

It’s not that leaders like BG Menard and Gen. McChrystal can’t be questioned. But I think that the standard for a professional journalist ought to be responsible criticism. And I question the assumption that an embedded reporter who isn’t privy to all of the intel and military briefings and has never had to make life and death decisions in a complex, multinational command environment in a war zone should be given the benefit of the doubt when he repeatedly sources accusations of incompetence and criminal neglect or misconduct in nothing more compelling than his personal opinion.”

Dangergirl left a comment on Cassandra’s post that raises a great question about “truth”
In short she asks which of Yon’s truth about McChrystal does one believe?

The ‘Truth” he wrote about McChrystal before he embedded in Afghanistan:

” In regard to Lieutenant General McChrystal his reputation is enviable. McChrystal’s reputation is as solid as that of Generals Mattis or Petraeus, but fewer people have heard of McChrystal . I know some very interesting folks in the special operations world, and McChrystal gets a five-star rating out of five stars. That comes from officers and enlisted”.

Or the ‘Truth” he wrote about McChyrstal after he was fired from his embed?

“McChrystal’s crew has spoken: Embed is ended. McChrystal cannot be trusted to tell the truth about this war”

“The disembed from McChrytal’s top staff (meaning from McChrystal himself) is a very bad sign. Sends chills that McChrystal himself thinks we are losing the war. McChrystal has a history of covering up. This causes concern that McChrystal might be misleading SecDef and President. Are they getting the facts?”

“I do not trust McChrystal anymore than some people trust the New York Times, Obama or Bush. If McChrystal could be trusted, I would go back to my better life. McChrystal is a great killer but this war is above his head. He must be watched.”

On April 24, 2010 at 5:19 pm, Herschel Smith said:

Julianna,

“Online intervention.” Thank you. This two word description exemplifies all that is wrong with your comment and this whole issue. I’ll be following this article up with another. One thing that I have (re)learned through this is that many people don’t actually read the article before commenting.

On April 26, 2010 at 2:32 am, byshaw said:

Recently, I posted an emotionally-driven comment on this blog (see the comments section), making several derogatory claims about military commands and commanders, US foreign policy in Afghanistan, and the merits of the conflict itself.

Soon thereafter, these remarks appeared on http://letthemfight.blogspot.com/2010/04/corroborate-and-truth-will-set-you-free.html, without my permission, publicizing them widely. The more I look at my own writing, the more I logically examine every claim I made, the more I realize that my statements are altogether out of line and demand a retraction and apology. Below is that piece:

Dear Sirs;

Recently, in an attempt to advocate US servicemembers deployed in Afghanistan, I have committed a series of grave errors. Rather than maintaining any sort of journalistic integrity, I chose instead to write based on my own opinions and emotions, and wrongly presented that material as fact.

When discussing a command and its supposed shortcomings, it behooves me to confirm every potential accusation, ensure that sources are properly-informed, and where possible interview the person(s) in question. In the case of this recent article, I did no such thing, taking vague conjecture and presenting it as factual. My behavior was both foolish and unprofessional.

For my statement that lower commanders are making efforts to charge subordinates for uniform and PPE violations, I sincerely and wholeheartedly apologize. I have witnessed no such thing on any occasion, and regret my accusations, which were rooted entirely in personal anger and not fact. Additionally, there was only one Soldier whose PPE choices were in question.

For suggesting that other commanders are attempting to level these charges against their subordinates, I again apologize. This was unprofessional devolution into hearsay at the total disregard of fact.

For stating that truly 95% of troops do not believe in their mission, I also offer my apology. This claim was in no way based off of statistically-verifiable surveys and should have been presented as strictly my own opinion. Nor is this statement the result of observations or interviews conducted in the past four weeks of my embed in Afghanistan. It is based on roughly seven years as either a US serviceman, or a writer working on their behalf.

For bringing undue scrutiny upon units that have exhibited nothing but the most professional conduct, highest integrity, and ferocity under fire, I retract my inaccurate, unverifiable accusations, apologize for the questions they have raised, and ask that commanders dismiss my writing as poorly-presented opinion statements which cannot be confirmed as factual. I take full responsibility for my writing, regret its negative effects, and humbly request that commanders be released from any proximal responsibility they are believed to have. My writing reflected a personal agenda; not facts, and I regret its publication in full. I have violated my own mission of military and veteran advocacy.

Finally, I apologize to the numbers of Soldiers who brought me into their confidence, who trusted me and cared for me like a brother, only for me to underhandedly level wild accusations against them, their commands, and the United States’ military’s mission as a whole. I take full responsibility for my actions, and regret whatever loss of confidence I have caused Soldiers to experience in either their commanders or their subordinates.

Sincerely,

Ben Y. Shaw

On December 9, 2012 at 7:13 am, dave said:

I think it’s funny that Michael Yon was correct about McChrystal and it seems that jumbo or jimbo has never attested to that fact.

McChrystal was an idiot. I knew that from the day that he landed in Afghanistan.

I spent nearly a decade over there. Half of that time as a Senior Mentor to the Afghan National Security Forces.

McChrystal/Tillman was all that anyone needed to say regarding McChrystal. He was a power hungry fool.

Trackbacks & Pingbacks

On April 19, 2010 at 11:35 pm, nbpundit said:

As most of the blowing of smoke are from those who are not embedded or have been, how would anyone know more about the termination than Yon?
Uncle Jimbo knows’ what differently? And if so, why didn’t he specify?

I will continue to read and pray for Mr.Yon.
On April 20, 2010 at 3:52 am, jj said:

I totally disagree w/ General McChrystal’s ROE and micromanagement of the campaign as well.
On April 20, 2010 at 5:49 am, MarkA said:

I no longer read Jim “Uncle Jimbo” Hanson (or Matthew “Blackfive” Burden for that matter) and have not for quite some time. Hanson particularly diminished his credibility with me multiple times over the past 12 months with his posts at Ace of Spades and Blackfive. He did a similar rant on Ralph Peters a few months ago and I stopped reading him since. I’m sorry but if I have to choose between the eminently qualified and competent Yon and Hanson, there’s not even a question. When I want the straight story on what’s going on, I read Yon & Smith, not Hanson and Burden.
On April 20, 2010 at 7:03 am, andrewlubin said:

I think the issue is more of Michael Yon and journalistic accuracy. If a journalist with a good reputation and large following feels compelled to call Gen McChrystal a liar and claim he’s misleading President Obama…then he’d best have some serious proof behind such a statement. Otherwise Yon slides back from being a journalist to a ranting blogger, which does discredit both to himself and to us all.
On April 20, 2010 at 7:08 am, andrewlubin said:

@nbpundit: re: Yon’s embed being terminated: the Brits threw him out last Fall for taking and publishing photos they requested (for OpSec reasons) he not take, as well as prematurely publishing names of KIA’s. He not only got himself banned, but they forbade entry to Camp Bastian to all other American journalists (like me). When we embed, there are a variety of rules to which we must sign our agreement – and Yon’s repeatedly and deliberately violated them.
On April 20, 2010 at 8:55 am, Herschel Smith said:

Commenter rykehaven has been banned and his comments deleted – not for being negative concerning Mr. Yon, but for repeated use of profanity on my blog.
On April 20, 2010 at 9:05 am, JewishOdysseus said:

Great insight from TCJ, as usual! Herschel, I particularly valued your impromptu “credo,” which really cd be an oath for all milbloggers:
“I have a moral obligation to support the warriors we deploy to do our violence for us (and that includes our warriors in the chain of command). I have an obligation to tell the truth, and I have done that as best as I know. I have an obligation to fulfill my commitments: I have told Michael Yon that I would pray for his safety, and I have done that.

I am under absolutely no obligation whatsoever to support any particular personality, any strategy, any tactic, technique or procedure, any set of rules, or any doctrine. I will do the best I can to hold those in the military and also those who fund them accountable.”

It does NOT say “be humble” or “show deference” or “show respect.” These are all great character traits, but let’s be honest, how many ambitious entrepreneurial blogger journalists have them?

Rykehaven makes some good fact-based critique on Yon’s misreporting from Basra. Let’s posit the man got it wrong. But it really was not fair to attack him for not reporting Maliki’s capture of the town, since, reviewing Yon’s blog archive from 3/08-4/08, he left the country about the day it began, and was on his book tour as soon as he got back to the States.

I’ve never seen any great journalist not blow a few (and I’m NOT talking about the modern lamestream media morons who basically blow them ALL), but for good people to swing haymakers at Michael Yon because he’s too popular on the Net or blasted a too-important figure…Huh?

Herschel put it exactly right: “We Milbloggers have better ways to spend our time than cannibalize our own.”

PS: Not trying to claim I am a milblogger, just quoting Herschel accurately.
On April 20, 2010 at 10:04 am, carol said:

I met Uncle Jimbo at the milblog conference last year and he was quite scathing about Michael Yon even then.

I met Michael Christmas before last and he talks like he writes. Very entertaining, straight, harsh and intelligent.

IMO Michael singlehandedly changed the narrative of the Iraq war, starting in May 2005. From that point to now, the American press has lost significant circulation and the broadcast news has lost vast numbers of viewers. What Michael did via his blog will be assessed and taught for centuries to come.

It is now “cool” amongst educated, clever teenagers to disparage all mainstream news and biased teachers. Here comes the revolution.

If Michael has deep reservations about this McChrystal person then so do I and so should the powers that be.

Plus – big thank you for deleting that drivel, I didn’t notice the profanity, just thought twas bs and boring.
On April 20, 2010 at 10:14 am, Warbucks said:

“Rick: How can you close me up? On what grounds?
“Captain Renault: I’m shocked, shocked to find that gambling is going on in here!
[a croupier hands Renault a pile of money]
“Croupier: Your winnings, sir.
“Captain Renault: [sotto voce] Oh, thank you very much.
[aloud]
“Captain Renault: Everybody out at once!”

Hey! We are trying to run the perfect war here. Mil-bloggers that operate from Vanity Fair (http://www.vanityfair.com/) morality ….. it does not matter what they argue about as long as they Ping-back my name …. are fated to rise to a greater destiny than humble and meek. A book on the controversy would surely be in order.

But don’t wait too long. The public soon forgets.

Marge, hand me the channel changer…
On April 20, 2010 at 10:24 am, Wind Rider said:

I can say I’ve actually met Jimbo, have yet to enjoy Mr. Yon’s company in person – and I’ve gotta take exception with Jimbo’s take on this one. I’ve followed Yon on and off for quite some time, and have found him to be a reliable and honest broker of the good, the bad, and even the personally embarrassing – and not for just others – the incident of the picked up weapon during the firefight in the alley comes to mind. With his critical reporting of the not so glowing and shiny aspects of what’s going on, on the ground, in theater, I’m not surprised he’s probably not on a few folks’ Easter Card list. Unless Jimbo can back this up with something, I’d have to go with Michael’s consistent stream of reportage for the past few months – including the published correspondence he had with the PAO honchos on the matter.

Coin check, Jimbo, you holdin?
On April 20, 2010 at 12:21 pm, Warbucks said:

“As a general rule, you don’t cross the mob, the IRS or Apple (Computer) without suffering some consequences,” (John Murrell – Good Morning Silicon Valley).

Perhaps we might consider adding to the “don’t cross list”, Commanding Generals? ……. N-a-a-a-a-h!

Better you give out two titles: One status is Embed (restricted access) the other status is “In-Bed” (open access to all areas).
On April 20, 2010 at 1:26 pm, byshaw said:

As a journalist (and combat veteran) currently embedded with US forces in Afghanistan, I have found that roughly 95% of the troops on the ground in no way believe in their mission, have no confidence that their efforts will bring about lasting change to Afghan security, stability, governance, or a decreased influence of radicalism. In truth, they fight simply to stay alive and want nothing more than to go home. A recent quote:

“I joined to defend and fight for the United States, but now I feel like I’ve been tasked out to fight for Afghanistan. Yet the people don’t even care, and make no effort whatsoever to help us help them. They don’t WANT help.”

The nature of freedom is that those who are unwilling to fight for it personally will never realize it. As it stands, nothing is more important to Afghans than survival, even at the expense of all self-dignity, nationalism, tribalism, and whatever ideals may at one time surpassed the will to simply “get by.”

I have also discovered that if I publicize these findings (that literally 95% of troops don’t believe in their own mission), the Soldiers who I cite will be charged, potentially relieved of command, and I will be asked to disembed from these units.

As a recent example, I filmed approximately 75 minutes of combat footage, knowingly exposed myself to concentrated enemy fire, and learned two days ago that if I post this footage, the Soldiers on film will be charged and/or relieved for uniform violations, improper wear of personal protective equipment (ballistic glasses, fire-retardant gloves, etc), and that low-level commanders have already begun this process. In an attempt to preserve the careers of the Soldiers I am trying to advocate, I am unable to tell (or show) the US public what they’re experiencing and what they think of it. The military only wants good news to flow from embedded journalists – not facts.

The reality is this: the current tactical directive leaves US troops on the ground increasingly vulnerable, often unsupported by air assets or indirect fire, and as a consequence their personal mission is to keep each other alive and come home. Under this current “soft war” policy, the war cannot be won. After all, Pashtun Islamic culture sees any sort of kindness and mercy as a weakness – and immediately exploit it. The Taliban, knowing the restrictive nature of the current ROE/Tactical directive, use it against US forces regularly.

US troops feel abandoned by their chains of command, bilked by military recruiters, and participants in a conflict that history will not treat kindly. They will return to the US and to civilian life full of disappointment, bitterness at their commanders, and unwilling to serve again. And military commanders here are doing their very best to ensure that this never reaches the public. In their pursuit of mission accomplishment, they have altogether neglected their second purpose: troop welfare. The former, however, will never be realized without an equally dedicated concentration on the latter.

I invite comments and criticism at byshaw@gmail.com.
Photos from my current embed can be found online at http://picasaweb.google.com/byshaw
My own website is http://byshaw.com
On April 20, 2010 at 5:21 pm, Bruce said:

I also gave up on Burden and Hanson long ago. I find the “ultimate moral authority” of these guys solely due to their military experience more than a bit tiresome. Mike Yon is a highly respected journalist whose creds are, in my opinion, above reproach. If Hanson feels – as he implies – that Mike violated some rule .. let him state that rule, and how it was broken. To say “he broke the rules…” and leave it at that is a trick the liberal press has been playing with us for too long. Personally – I have a problem with any senior military official appointed by the Obama administration, and that includes dimbulb Mullen.
On April 20, 2010 at 6:09 pm, Kaf said:

I know I have absolutely no cred being new. That said, this is my email exchange with the PAO on April 11th.

Myself:

I support your embed program to rotate in as many voices out there as
possible to prevent biases from a narrow perspective from forming.
Yon likes to play to his fan base and the fact that he left your email
there is evidence of how he ‘plays’ regarding authority. Beneath the
veneer of ‘objective’ reporting is a man who resents any line of
command/social structure. Hence his attack on your higher ups in his
face book comments. His particularly vile contempt of Canadians shows
his propaganda reporting wrapped in a thin layer of ‘telling it’ as it
is, ie, what he deems as truth shall never, ever, ever, ever, be
contradicted. Anyway, hope the case of shooting the messenger isn’t too
brutal.

Regards,

………………….

Response:
Thank you for the email.

I try to be unbiased and provide an opportunity to every journalist
possible. Good news or bad news, the people back home (Canada, U.S.,
U.K., etc.) deserve to get there information from as many sources we can
facilitate.

Ironically, there were no higher ups that influenced this, just me.

Have a great day.

V/R
Brian DeSantis

……………..

It is clear what my observations have been, and I can quote where he disses the Canadians in his facebook. Also the strange, convoluted logic of why BG Menard is ‘to blame’, etc.. The is a pattern here.

Occurance: Authority makes a decision or has an affect that is not to his liking.

Outcome: Revenge agenda, higher ups to blame (ego?), conspiracy theories and ad hominem attacks that border on slander.

What does it matter? It seemed like an enormous amount, at one time, but repeated exposure to the same over reaction showing the motivations (wounded pride/sense of entitlement/over inflated vision of one’s influence….ie, ego) to his actions, diminish the value of his arguments and ultimately, his conclusions.

A pattern that throws a whole new light on his version of the British Media Ops, Airport security (he mentioned his indignation of a close female friend of his who had trouble at the airport prior to this happening), BG Menard (couldn’t go on his mission, as planned, because of the bridge), Canadian Newpapers, Canadian reporters, Spanish troops, Army PAO’s, to name a few,…right up to the President of the USA.

And NOW, according to his latest facebook – the milbloggers

“The milblogging community is largely a hurricane of hot air”

Michael Yon’s FB has been reduced, for me, to just an interesting and bordering on fascinating phenomena of what can be observed of bloggers and their loyal ‘groupthink’ fans in this new medium of communication….

…with great photos.

Kaf
On April 20, 2010 at 7:02 pm, exhelodrvr said:

Michael Yon has definitely done some great work. However, at times it becomes too much about “him”, and when it does, his work suffers. That seems to be what is happening here.
On April 20, 2010 at 7:25 pm, Axel said:

In the early years I was a huge fan of Yon’s, even would send a few bucks now and again. When he became famous I noticed a change, was turned off by some of his rants. However, I still read his work, and admire his guts and dedication. And yes, he is making a living by being an embed. So what? He doesn’t bore me w/photos by the pool side like some do.

With that said, it seems many are in an uproar over the McChrystal comment. I can see that McChrystal has changed, he isn’t the man that he used to be based solely on reading and tracking him through the media. I am not impressed w/what the man is doing in A-stan. No doubt Washington politics has everything to do w/this. So perhaps Yon is onto something, only time will tell. Certainly any person in the position of power should be watched no matter who they are. Give me Yon over the MSM media or military propaganda any day.

What I find disturbing is how the milblog community has attacked this man like vultures on roadkill. I find it appalling, it says a lot about who these people are. If there is a grievance or concern about Yon’s well-being from burn out express it in a private email. As a blog reader it’s not particularly relative, I am sure some would argue that. Mr. Yon is a peer, colleague, and fellow mil-blogger, whether it’s personal, (which it seems to be) or contempt, it is in poor taste for the entire milblog circle to jump on the Mike Yon has lost it band wagon w/verbal assaults and criticisms. There is an incredible amount of jealousy, ego, arrogance, and competition in the milblog world. It comes through on the internet, and it definitely comes through when meeting these people w/the exception of some. I attended one of their milblog conferences and felt like I was back in high-school. It’s more like a wannabe conference, an excuse to get together to party. The players really should just rent a beach house somewhere so they can drink and gloat about themselves and save the rest of us our cash.

Whether Yon brings it on himself or not, what the milblog community has done as a whole I find unsavory, definitely unbecoming to what is supposedly a unified group of people w/the mission of telling the truth about our Troops and the war. Bashing each other isn’t cool, at least publicly as a collective whole. Mike Yon is doing the walk, and not just the talk, whether you like his style, behavior, or not…he doesn’t deserve this crap. And he is entitled to his own opinions. He has brought us some amazing stories and photos from the front lines, I honor and appreciate him for that. He has made mistakes, but nothing like what the AP did w/the photos of LCPL Bernard. These milbloggers should look in the mirror w/their character attacks against Yon. On any given day the tides could turn and they could find themselves the next victim of the vultures.

And this danger girl chick posting everywhere, someone please reel her in, talk about your woman scorned. She is enjoying herself a bit too much and is quite tiring. I do believe it’s time to take the advice they give to Yon, take a break from milblogs.
On April 20, 2010 at 10:54 pm, REN said:

“…you make no friends in the chain of command when you claim that your own analysis is better than that of Army intelligence…”

You seem to be conflating the decisions of the battle space commanders with the analysis and reporting of Army Intelligence. Unless, of course, you meant the lower-case “intelligence” of those who actually do make the battle plans. Please take note the difference and you may keep a few more friends. =Þ
On April 20, 2010 at 11:57 pm, MeTooThen said:

Disclaimers:

I have never been in the military.

I have never been in combat.

I know nothing of the stress of fighting, killing, or having someone trying to kill me.

I have had many years experience treating individuals who have suffered from trauma, including but not limited to quite a few military veterans dating from WWII up to and including those who have recently returned from the current wars in the “sand box.”

With that said, and having followed Mr. Yon, on and off, for some time, I believe that there are several likely truths here.

1) Isolation for long periods of time in a combat zone, away from friends, family, lovers or intimates, can prove to be brutalizing and is not healthy psychologically, emotionally, or spiritually, and can lead to a great deal of loss, grief, bitterness, and rage.

2) Such continued isolation and reliance on oneself only for the purpose of ones own mission can lead to further conflict with those around you. Recall, Mr. Yon is working for himself, alongside the military, but he is not there to complete any military mission, only report on it.

3) These two sets of circumstance can prove highly problematic, and in a case like this, tact, judgment, perspective can be lost, and one may withdraw further into themselves for protection and self-preservation, further worsening matters or creating a vicious circle.

4) As noted above, and to paraphrase the former Sec Def, there are knowns, known unknowns, and unknown unknowns. Or as Paul Harvey called it, “The rest of the story.”

With all due respect, and with great respect for those who have served and to those who have embedded, I suggest that each and every one of us reserve judgment as to what is going on as we do not know what really went on – nor will we likely ever fully know what occurred in these situations cited (think of Rashamon.)

It has been suggested that there may be a component of “burn out” fueling some of the writing and opinions expressed by Mr. Yon and it has been recommended that he take time to recharge, reflect, etc. To that I would add take some time to heal.

Far away from the terrible and unspeakable horror that is war, I can only express my deep and abiding gratitude to all who serve on my behalf. To Mr. Yon I wish only for him to experience some much deserved peace and abiding comfort for a job well done, even if imperfect.
On April 21, 2010 at 12:43 am, OGolly said:

I am a former Army PAO. I agree wholeheartedly. I follow Michael Yon and wish him well in his efforts. No one should automatically trust a GO. Trust must be earned.
On April 22, 2010 at 9:40 am, Warbucks said:

“The lie is different at every level.”…. perhaps one of the deepest truths about world power ever given…. Attribution: anonymous “BlackOps”

I doubt if any of us writing here see the big picture. Nothing is what it seems and almost everything you think is true, is true at the level you see it.
On April 22, 2010 at 4:24 pm, byshaw said:

As of today, my photos, videos, and writing have been so closely monitored by the command that I have elected to remove all imagery for fear of jeopardizing the troops on the ground. Commanders are using the images and footage to threaten Article 15s for Soldiers photographed out of uniform, and also threatening to relieve platoon sergeants and first sergeants for allowing such things to happen. Professionally, I have been bound and gagged – that is unless I’m willing to burn an entire troop (or squadron) of Soldiers in the process of telling the US public what’s happening – which would be counterproductive.

My next step will be to file a formal complaint with commanders who use media resources to incriminate their own subordinates. This command, I have determined, is far more concerned with looking pretty than accomplishing their mission. I also think that, somehow, the US public needs to know about it.

byshaw@gmail.com
On April 23, 2010 at 9:50 am, Kaf said:

byshaw…I’m confused. You say on your facebook note ‘On Afghanistan’ written prior to going there,

>>Despite a heavy international presence and mindboggling sums of money dumped into the country, the likelihood of success is a subject of much international, domestic and dinner table debate. Military commanders are optimistic, but one must wonder if they are only saying as they have been directed to say. The US military, after all, does not practice democracy (i.e. free speech); it only defends it.<<

It seemed like you understood this about the military. Also, you say you are professionally bound and gagged. Seems like the objection to public view is that the physical image associats a specific recognizable unit with soldiers out of uniform, etc. What happened to oral accounts of events? Can your observations of events not be relayed this way – or was the uniform bit integral to the story.

Bottom line: I don't see the gag.
On April 24, 2010 at 9:06 am, Julianna said:

Oh Axel. You may think dangergirl is scorned, and that’s a typical male default position, but one could say the same about Yon whose opinion or ‘truth” about McChrystal changed after he was fired from his embed. ( see below for detailed example)

I don’t understand how Axel & Herschel and even Jules Crittenden will listen to all of Yon’s ugly truths and give Yon the complete benefit of the doubt when his ugly truths are about General Menard or McChrystal simply because they come from Yon; even as those “truths” have either been proven to be lies, as in the case of Menard, or merely the opinion of a scorned Yon who has once again been fired from his embed.

Had those same ugly “truths” about McChrystal come from a NYT Times reporter, particularly one who had just been fired from his embed, would Axel, Hershel, or any of Yon’s loyalists lend them the same veracity?

I agree that Blackfive and Jim live in this world of rarefied air, where they believe their shit don’t stink, but so does Yon. I read dangergirl’s comments on B5, and she was unabashedly attacked by Matt & others after she described to Matt exactly how Yon would react; yet she turned out to be right:

“Mike doesn’t care about the opinions of those who disagree with him or call him out on his lies and his irrational behavior. He doesn’t care about kind, respectful, supportive interventions. He spins all this to make everyone seem misguided at best, and a liar at worst — which is exactly what he did on his FB page when others tried a similar albeit smaller version of an “intervention” and which is what he’ll do with Matt and the millbloggers who participated in this intervention. ”

Matt believed he was doing a good decent thing by bringing together a group of his concerned milblogging friends to attempt an online intervention, but to many of the Yon loyalists it seems that these Milbloggers ambushed and gang rape Yon because of his comment about McChyrstal.

At least dangergirl was able to point out a long history of Yon’s irrational and unprofessional behavior.

And I don’t see how Axel can claim she was scorned (she made it clear she ended the friendship when Yon persisted with his lies about Canadian troops even before he made his false accusations about Menard) and yet not say the same of Yon’s sudden change of opinion about McChrystal after being fired from his embed. ( see Dangergirl’s excellent 1 to 1 comparison below)

I admit don’t like her “in your face” attitude – but I along with many others find her far more credible than Matt & Jim who harbor this “holier than thou’ attitude that borders on quiet arrogance, or than Yon’s fans who blindly hang onto his every word and go ballistic when anyone dares to question Yon’s veracity!

If its ok for Yon to question leaders like Menard and McChrystal, then why is NOT ok for the milblogging community to question Yon? Good for goose, not for gander? It was the milblogging community that wholeheartedly supported Yon and helped his “fame” grow. They rallied behind him during his fight with SHOCK Magazine and against the Army claiming ownership over his iconic photo. Surely they have a right to question his integrity?

Perhaps you’ll accept the intelligent reasoned and well thought piece regarding Yon from Cassandra. She’s another woman and I challenge you to call her scorned. She make the same points as dangergirl and Matt and Jim, but far more eloquently and with much less emotion and none of the ‘tude’

http://www.villainouscompany.com/vcblog/archives/2010/04/burden_of_proof.html

“Michael Yon is purportedly a professional journalist. As such, shouldn’t he be held to some elementary standards of professionalism? But more importantly, how much sense does it make to extend the benefit of the doubt to Mr. Yon for what amounts to unsourced and unsupported allegations of criminal misconduct against a career soldier?

It’s not that leaders like BG Menard and Gen. McChrystal can’t be questioned. But I think that the standard for a professional journalist ought to be responsible criticism. And I question the assumption that an embedded reporter who isn’t privy to all of the intel and military briefings and has never had to make life and death decisions in a complex, multinational command environment in a war zone should be given the benefit of the doubt when he repeatedly sources accusations of incompetence and criminal neglect or misconduct in nothing more compelling than his personal opinion.”

Dangergirl left a comment on Cassandra’s post that raises a great question about “truth”
In short she asks which of Yon’s truth about McChrystal does one believe?

The ‘Truth” he wrote about McChrystal before he embedded in Afghanistan:

” In regard to Lieutenant General McChrystal his reputation is enviable. McChrystal’s reputation is as solid as that of Generals Mattis or Petraeus, but fewer people have heard of McChrystal . I know some very interesting folks in the special operations world, and McChrystal gets a five-star rating out of five stars. That comes from officers and enlisted”.

Or the ‘Truth” he wrote about McChyrstal after he was fired from his embed?

“McChrystal’s crew has spoken: Embed is ended. McChrystal cannot be trusted to tell the truth about this war”

“The disembed from McChrytal’s top staff (meaning from McChrystal himself) is a very bad sign. Sends chills that McChrystal himself thinks we are losing the war. McChrystal has a history of covering up. This causes concern that McChrystal might be misleading SecDef and President. Are they getting the facts?”

“I do not trust McChrystal anymore than some people trust the New York Times, Obama or Bush. If McChrystal could be trusted, I would go back to my better life. McChrystal is a great killer but this war is above his head. He must be watched.”
On April 24, 2010 at 5:19 pm, Herschel Smith said:

Julianna,

“Online intervention.” Thank you. This two word description exemplifies all that is wrong with your comment and this whole issue. I’ll be following this article up with another. One thing that I have (re)learned through this is that many people don’t actually read the article before commenting.
On April 26, 2010 at 2:32 am, byshaw said:

Recently, I posted an emotionally-driven comment on this blog (see the comments section), making several derogatory claims about military commands and commanders, US foreign policy in Afghanistan, and the merits of the conflict itself.

Soon thereafter, these remarks appeared on http://letthemfight.blogspot.com/2010/04/corroborate-and-truth-will-set-you-free.html, without my permission, publicizing them widely. The more I look at my own writing, the more I logically examine every claim I made, the more I realize that my statements are altogether out of line and demand a retraction and apology. Below is that piece:

Dear Sirs;

Recently, in an attempt to advocate US servicemembers deployed in Afghanistan, I have committed a series of grave errors. Rather than maintaining any sort of journalistic integrity, I chose instead to write based on my own opinions and emotions, and wrongly presented that material as fact.

When discussing a command and its supposed shortcomings, it behooves me to confirm every potential accusation, ensure that sources are properly-informed, and where possible interview the person(s) in question. In the case of this recent article, I did no such thing, taking vague conjecture and presenting it as factual. My behavior was both foolish and unprofessional.

For my statement that lower commanders are making efforts to charge subordinates for uniform and PPE violations, I sincerely and wholeheartedly apologize. I have witnessed no such thing on any occasion, and regret my accusations, which were rooted entirely in personal anger and not fact. Additionally, there was only one Soldier whose PPE choices were in question.

For suggesting that other commanders are attempting to level these charges against their subordinates, I again apologize. This was unprofessional devolution into hearsay at the total disregard of fact.

For stating that truly 95% of troops do not believe in their mission, I also offer my apology. This claim was in no way based off of statistically-verifiable surveys and should have been presented as strictly my own opinion. Nor is this statement the result of observations or interviews conducted in the past four weeks of my embed in Afghanistan. It is based on roughly seven years as either a US serviceman, or a writer working on their behalf.

For bringing undue scrutiny upon units that have exhibited nothing but the most professional conduct, highest integrity, and ferocity under fire, I retract my inaccurate, unverifiable accusations, apologize for the questions they have raised, and ask that commanders dismiss my writing as poorly-presented opinion statements which cannot be confirmed as factual. I take full responsibility for my writing, regret its negative effects, and humbly request that commanders be released from any proximal responsibility they are believed to have. My writing reflected a personal agenda; not facts, and I regret its publication in full. I have violated my own mission of military and veteran advocacy.

Finally, I apologize to the numbers of Soldiers who brought me into their confidence, who trusted me and cared for me like a brother, only for me to underhandedly level wild accusations against them, their commands, and the United States’ military’s mission as a whole. I take full responsibility for my actions, and regret whatever loss of confidence I have caused Soldiers to experience in either their commanders or their subordinates.

Sincerely,

Ben Y. Shaw
On December 9, 2012 at 7:13 am, dave said:

I think it’s funny that Michael Yon was correct about McChrystal and it seems that jumbo or jimbo has never attested to that fact.

McChrystal was an idiot. I knew that from the day that he landed in Afghanistan.

I spent nearly a decade over there. Half of that time as a Senior Mentor to the Afghan National Security Forces.

McChrystal/Tillman was all that anyone needed to say regarding McChrystal. He was a power hungry fool.

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL

In Defense of Michael Yon: An Open Letter to Milbloggers

Trackbacks & Pingbacks

Comments

Leave a comment