即使在言論自由被充分保障的美國，軍人的言論也被嚴格的節制。

美軍在阿富汗的總指揮官麥克克里斯托(Stanley A. McChrystal)將軍被召回華盛頓，因為他及他的幕僚人員對歐巴馬政府高階官員嘲弄式的批評。

麥克克里斯托將軍今天本來在喀布爾（阿富汗首都）按預定計畫要主持一項利行的視訊會議，結果被指示立即返回華盛頓，預計於星期三(6/23)要面見總統與副總統。雖然他立刻發表聲明道歉，但是我想麥克克里斯托將軍與其幕僚應該都會被解除職務；阿富汗戰爭投入大量的金錢與人力，成果有限，戰地最高指揮官沒什麼功績可讓人讚許，批評起長官卻一點兒都不客氣。

今年四月份，同樣在紐約時報，一篇談論 Power Point 在部隊裡的運用，（其影響與不足之處，缺點，還有最嚴重的一點：濫用－許多軍官要花很多時間製作 Power Point。）放了一張麥克克里斯托將軍用來做簡報畫著錯綜複雜的投影片，然後便引用麥克克里斯托將軍的話：「當我們看懂了這張投影片時，我們已經贏得這場戰爭了！」－－當時我想這位將軍風采與口才都不錯。歐巴馬也選擇一位和他自己比較像的將軍，來指揮阿富汗戰場。

美軍在阿富汗的總指揮官麥克克里斯托將軍被召回華盛頓，也讓我想起韓戰時的麥克阿瑟將軍（Douglas MacArthur），也是亂講話被杜魯門(Harry S. Truman)給召回華盛頓。兩位將軍的姓都是（愛爾蘭或蘇格蘭的）蓋爾語系(Gaelic)的姓(Prefix Mc and Mac means "son of")，不過當時的麥克阿瑟可比現在的麥克克里斯托出名多了！

亂講話，當然是一種過度簡化的觀察；其所表現的心理可能有：傲慢自大，或是有雄才大略。但是在現今的民主國家裡，即使是功勳彪炳的將軍，也必須接受文職官員與總統的指揮、命令。或許批評老闆是員工都會做的，但是身為軍人，只要軍職在身，批評老闆這件事仍是大忌。當然，在政治不斷兩極化發展的今日，沒有麥克阿瑟那麼高知名度的麥克克里斯托不太可能出來選總統，但是他的道歉聲明使得他投入共和黨反歐巴馬陣營的正當性也下降不少。

國內前些日子也有外交官以筆名發表許多輕蔑國家的言論，在否認這些作為被證據推翻後，「言論自由」也被搬出來做為護身符。然而這位外交官的批評不只是對政府官員而已，根本是違背基本的「忠誠」－－不談中國、中華民國、台灣或是中華台北這些符號所代表的，他連這片自己生長的土地都不認同，實在不夠格做一位這片土地上的公務人員。

 2010.6.24 補記：
1. Gen. McChrystal 被解職，由前伊拉克戰爭的指揮官 Gen. David H. Petraeus 擔任美軍與 NATO 阿富汗戰區指揮官。
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/24/world/asia/24petraeus.html

2. 美國總統歐巴馬在白宮的聲明：
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/statement-president-rose-garden




June 22, 2010

McChrystal Is Summoned to Washington Over Remarks
By DEXTER FILKINS


KABUL, Afghanistan — An angry President Obama summoned his top commander in Afghanistan to Washington on Tuesday after a magazine article portrayed the general and his staff as openly contemptuous of some senior members of the Obama administration.

The military’s senior leaders joined in sharp criticism of the commander, Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, and an administration official said he would meet with President Obama and Vice President Biden at the White House on Wednesday “to explain to the Pentagon and the commander in chief his quotes in the piece,” which appears in the July 8-22 edition of Rolling Stone.

General McChrystal was scheduled to attend a monthly meeting on Afghanistan by teleconference, the official said, but was directed to return to Washington in light of the article. The general apologized for his remarks, saying the article was “a mistake reflecting poor judgment and should never have happened.”

The article shows General McChrystal or his aides talking in sharply derisive terms about Mr. Biden; Ambassador Karl Eikenberry; Richard C. Holbrooke, the special envoy to Afghanistan and Pakistan; and an unnamed minister in the French government. One of General McChrystal’s aides is quoted as referring to the national security adviser, James L. Jones, as a “clown.”


A senior administration official said Mr. Obama was furious about the article, particularly with the suggestion that he was uninterested and unprepared to discuss the Afghanistan war after he took office.

The magazine article, “The Runaway General,” quotes aides of General McChrystal saying the he was “pretty disappointed” by an Oval Office meeting with Mr. Obama, and that he found the president “uncomfortable and intimidated” during a Pentagon meeting with General McChrystal and several other generals.

The article, an advance copy of which was obtained by The New York Times, does not mention any serious policy differences with Mr. Obama, who chose General McChrystal to take charge of a major escalation of American troops and equipment in hopes of reversing the deteriorating situation here. And most of the critical remarks attributed to General McChrystal appear to come from his aides.

In his statement, General McChrystal said, “I have enormous respect and admiration for President Obama and his national security team, and for the civilian leaders and troops fighting this war and I remain committed to ensuring its successful outcome.”

Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates released a statement Tuesday that criticized General McChrystal for "a significant mistake" and "poor judgment in this case."

"We are fighting a war against al Qaeda and its extremist allies, who directly threaten the United States, Afghanistan, and our friends and allies around the world," said Mr. Gates, who has been among the most robust supporters of General McChrystal and the Afghan strategy.

"Our troops and coalition partners are making extraordinary sacrifices on behalf of our security, and our singular focus must be on supporting them and succeeding in Afghanistan without such distractions," he added. "General McChrystal has apologized to me and is similarly reaching out to others named in this article to apologize to them as well. I have recalled General McChrystal to Washington to discuss this in person."

Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, spoke to General McChrystal late Monday and was described by a senior aide as "deeply disappointed" in the article and the comments it contained. The article seems destined to spark debate over the wisdom of Mr. Obama’s strategy, at a time when violence in Afghanistan is rising sharply and when several central planks of the strategy appear to be stalled. Two important American allies, the Dutch and Canadians, have announced plans to pull their combat troops out of the country.

General Senator John Kerry, chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, said Tuesday in remarks broadcast on CNN that he had “enormous respect for General McChrystal” and warned against overreaction to the remarks. He added, however, that the general would have to “deal with” the fallout from his comments.

“My impression is that all of us would be best served by just backing off and staying cool and calm and not sort of succumbing to the normal Washington twitter,” Mr. Kerry said.

Indeed, the situation put both President Obama and General McChrystal in a vise. As the commander-in-chief, President Obama could decide to relieve General McChrystal of command, but if he did so, it seems hard to difficult to imagine how his strategy for Afghanistan, now in mid-stream, could carry on. If General McChrystal keeps his job, however, it seems likely that his reputation — and therefore possibly his effectiveness — will be diminished.

The author of the article — Michael Hastings, a freelance journalist — appears to have been granted intimate access to General McChrystal’s inner circle. Most of the comments seem to have been uttered during unguarded moments, in places like bars and restaurants where the general and his aides gathered to unwind.

Like many in a new generation of senior officers, General McChrystal maintained a remarkably open policy with the press, bringing them into secret briefings and on his helicopter as he traveled the country. Usually it worked in his favor; reporters gained insights into the general’s strategy and the challenges of the job.

This time, however, it did not. Duncan Boothby, a special assistant to General McChrystal who coordinated the article, resigned, aides said. Many of the offending remarks were picked up when General McChrystal and his team were grounded in Paris in early June by the ash cloud by the volcano in Iceland, they said.

“Everyone kind of relaxed,” an aide said.

A McChrystal aide is quoted saying of Mr. Holbrooke: “The Boss says he’s like a wounded animal. Holbrooke keeps hearing rumors that he’s going to be fired, so that makes him dangerous.”

On another occasion, General McChrystal is described as reacting with exasperation when he receives an e-mail message from Mr. Holbrooke. “Oh, not another e-mail from Holbrooke. I don’t even want to open it.”

The article also describes a conversation in which General McChrystal and an aide talk about Mr. Biden. Mr. Biden is known to have opposed the decision to escalate the war, preferring instead a slimmed-down plan focused on containing terrorism.

“Are you asking about Vice President Biden?” General McChrystal jokes.

“Biden?” suggests a top adviser. “Did you say ‘Bite me?’ ”

General McChrystal is also quoted making disdainful remarks about Mr. Eikenberry, the ambassador, with whom he has had sharp disagreements over the war. Last year, Mr. Eikenberry sent confidential cables to Washington opposing Mr. Obama’s decision to send more troops.

“He’s one that covers his flanks for the history books,” General McChrystal is quoted as saying. “Now, if we fail, they can say, ‘I told you so.’ ”

The article also describes a meeting in which a soldier vents his frustration over General McChrystal’s tightening of the rules governing the use of air strikes against suspected insurgents. The soldier, Pfc. Jared Pautsch, is quoted telling General McChrystal that he is endangering the lives of soldiers by forcing them to be too restrained.

Pfc. Jared Pautsch is quoted as telling the general the Americans should just drop a “bomb on the place,” and asking, “What are we doing here?”

The article, and General McChrystal’s indiscretions, come at an extraordinarily difficult juncture of the war, when virtually every major as aspect of American strategy is experiencing difficulties. Violence is soaring, with 2010 on track to be one of the deadliest years for American troops.

The recent operation in the southern town of Marja, which was supposed to be a showcase for the new American effort, is bogged down, with General McChrystal himself calling it a “bleeding ulcer.” The coming operation in Kandahar, which American commanders had billed as the decisive operation of the war, has been scaled back and slowed down, in part because of local opposition.

Most troubling of all is the shakiness of the Afghan government and its leader, President Hamid Karzai. In recent months, Mr. Karzai has grown increasingly erratic, even threatening to join the Taliban. In recent months, Mr. Karzai has alienated Mr. Biden, Mr. Eikenberry and Mr. Holbrooke.

The one senior American who still enjoys a strong relationship Mr. Karzai is General McChrystal.

Jeff Zeleny, Thom Shanker and Brian Knowlton contributed reporting from Washington.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/23/world/asia/23mcchrystal.html



April 26, 2010
We Have Met the Enemy and He Is PowerPoint
By ELISABETH BUMILLER



WASHINGTON — Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, the leader of American and NATO forces in Afghanistan, was shown a PowerPoint slide in Kabul last summer that was meant to portray the complexity of American military strategy, but looked more like a bowl of spaghetti.

“When we understand that slide, we’ll have won the war,” General McChrystal dryly remarked, one of his advisers recalled, as the room erupted in laughter.

The slide has since bounced around the Internet as an example of a military tool that has spun out of control. Like an insurgency, PowerPoint has crept into the daily lives of military commanders and reached the level of near obsession. The amount of time expended on PowerPoint, the Microsoft presentation program of computer-generated charts, graphs and bullet points, has made it a running joke in the Pentagon and in Iraq and Afghanistan.

“PowerPoint makes us stupid,” Gen. James N. Mattis of the Marine Corps, the Joint Forces commander, said this month at a military conference in North Carolina. (He spoke without PowerPoint.) Brig. Gen. H. R. McMaster, who banned PowerPoint presentations when he led the successful effort to secure the northern Iraqi city of Tal Afar in 2005, followed up at the same conference by likening PowerPoint to an internal threat.

“It’s dangerous because it can create the illusion of understanding and the illusion of control,” General McMaster said in a telephone interview afterward. “Some problems in the world are not bullet-izable.”

In General McMaster’s view, PowerPoint’s worst offense is not a chart like the spaghetti graphic, which was first uncovered by NBC’s Richard Engel, but rigid lists of bullet points (in, say, a presentation on a conflict’s causes) that take no account of interconnected political, economic and ethnic forces. “If you divorce war from all of that, it becomes a targeting exercise,” General McMaster said.

Commanders say that behind all the PowerPoint jokes are serious concerns that the program stifles discussion, critical thinking and thoughtful decision-making. Not least, it ties up junior officers — referred to as PowerPoint Rangers — in the daily preparation of slides, be it for a Joint Staff meeting in Washington or for a platoon leader’s pre-mission combat briefing in a remote pocket of Afghanistan.

Last year when a military Web site, Company Command, asked an Army platoon leader in Iraq, Lt. Sam Nuxoll, how he spent most of his time, he responded, “Making PowerPoint slides.” When pressed, he said he was serious.

“I have to make a storyboard complete with digital pictures, diagrams and text summaries on just about anything that happens,” Lieutenant Nuxoll told the Web site. “Conduct a key leader engagement? Make a storyboard. Award a microgrant? Make a storyboard.”

Despite such tales, “death by PowerPoint,” the phrase used to described the numbing sensation that accompanies a 30-slide briefing, seems here to stay. The program, which first went on sale in 1987 and was acquired by Microsoft soon afterward, is deeply embedded in a military culture that has come to rely on PowerPoint’s hierarchical ordering of a confused world.

“There’s a lot of PowerPoint backlash, but I don’t see it going away anytime soon,” said Capt. Crispin Burke, an Army operations officer at Fort Drum, N.Y., who under the name Starbuck wrote an essay about PowerPoint on the Web site Small Wars Journal that cited Lieutenant Nuxoll’s comment.

In a daytime telephone conversation, he estimated that he spent an hour each day making PowerPoint slides. In an initial e-mail message responding to the request for an interview, he wrote, “I would be free tonight, but unfortunately, I work kind of late (sadly enough, making PPT slides).”

Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates reviews printed-out PowerPoint slides at his morning staff meeting, although he insists on getting them the night before so he can read ahead and cut back the briefing time.

Gen. David H. Petraeus, who oversees the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and says that sitting through some PowerPoint briefings is “just agony,” nonetheless likes the program for the display of maps and statistics showing trends. He has also conducted more than a few PowerPoint presentations himself.

General McChrystal gets two PowerPoint briefings in Kabul per day, plus three more during the week. General Mattis, despite his dim view of the program, said a third of his briefings are by PowerPoint.

Richard C. Holbrooke, the Obama administration’s special representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan, was given PowerPoint briefings during a trip to Afghanistan last summer at each of three stops — Kandahar, Mazar-i-Sharif and Bagram Air Base. At a fourth stop, Herat, the Italian forces there not only provided Mr. Holbrooke with a PowerPoint briefing, but accompanied it with swelling orchestral music.

President Obama was shown PowerPoint slides, mostly maps and charts, in the White House Situation Room during the Afghan strategy review last fall.

Commanders say that the slides impart less information than a five-page paper can hold, and that they relieve the briefer of the need to polish writing to convey an analytic, persuasive point. Imagine lawyers presenting arguments before the Supreme Court in slides instead of legal briefs.

Captain Burke’s essay in the Small Wars Journal also cited a widely read attack on PowerPoint in Armed Forces Journal last summer by Thomas X. Hammes, a retired Marine colonel, whose title, “Dumb-Dumb Bullets,” underscored criticism of fuzzy bullet points; “accelerate the introduction of new weapons,” for instance, does not actually say who should do so.

No one is suggesting that PowerPoint is to blame for mistakes in the current wars, but the program did become notorious during the prelude to the invasion of Iraq. As recounted in the book “Fiasco” by Thomas E. Ricks (Penguin Press, 2006), Lt. Gen. David D. McKiernan, who led the allied ground forces in the 2003 invasion of Iraq, grew frustrated when he could not get Gen. Tommy R. Franks, the commander at the time of American forces in the Persian Gulf region, to issue orders that stated explicitly how he wanted the invasion conducted, and why. Instead, General Franks just passed on to General McKiernan the vague PowerPoint slides that he had already shown to Donald H. Rumsfeld, the defense secretary at the time.

Senior officers say the program does come in handy when the goal is not imparting information, as in briefings for reporters.

The news media sessions often last 25 minutes, with 5 minutes left at the end for questions from anyone still awake. Those types of PowerPoint presentations, Dr. Hammes said, are known as “hypnotizing chickens.”

Helene Cooper contributed reporting.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/27/world/27powerpoint.html