On the Cover of Rolling Stone

Long, long ago, in a culture far, far away, coverage in Rolling Stone magazine was a coveted symbol of having arrived – at least for budding musicians. Dr Hook’s 1973 hit record portrayed in colorful fashion the glories bestowed upon any musician to attain that milestone. But that was then, this is now. Today one former top military commander is likely regretting his coverage in Rolling Stone.

I’m not sure it’s a good thing for our long-term welfare when a pop-culture, pseudo-news magazine has the ability to directly impact foreign policy – especially military operations. I can envision that capability trending to very scary conclusions. Personally I wish Rolling Stone had stuck with being the flagship media source for the world music scene instead of trying to become the beacon of light for far-left ideology. I guess I’d feel the same if UFO Magazine beamed-down Ben Bernanke from his Federal Reserve position by revealing a bar-room conversation where he considered the possibility that aliens were siphoning off our Treasury funds. To me it’s unsettling that an entity with no expertise in (and highly biased opinions on) critical world affairs can impact them so dramatically. Yet, this week Rolling Stone accomplished what Al Qaeda could not - eliminating the commander of NATO forces in Afghanistan.

Few people are thrilled by this outcome (other than the stakeholders at Rolling Stone who reap the financial benefits) because we all realize it’s a black eye for the United States, and even jeopardizes the lives of soldiers in that theatre. But who’s to blame? Michael Hastings, the reporter, was successfully making a name for himself with a shocking article that was a blockbuster for his editors. Rolling Stone is trying to remain viable in a print industry that is struggling for its existence and this piece generated enormous publicity for them. President Obama couldn’t let this pass without undermining long-standing code that military commanders respect the political direction set by their civilian leaders; and, as a politician he undoubtedly calculated the political impact of his decision. Finally, it’s understandable that General McChrystal’s frustration with trying to implement a political strategy (nation-building) using military force would come to the surface in what he believed were confidential moments. So it’s hard to blame any of the individual players.

Many powerful figures throughout history with long records of achievement have been toppled in a few short moments when personal thoughts escaped into the public domain. So General McChrystal is not alone in the consequences for what may have seemed a harmless lapse in prudence. For a while many others will learn from this incident and be more wary of what they say to whom. But eventually another prominent leader will fall victim to the same fate. The most interesting blame question here is this: Most of us have muttered unfavorable comments about our own authority figures, or those with whom we work. But if those comments did not fall into the wrong ears we incurred no consequence. So the blame arises from being exposed, not from the underlying values or beliefs held. What benefit derives from a culture wherein getting caught for expressing understandable and ordinary thoughts can ruin you, while proficiently concealing your thoughts allows you to be a hero? I’d love to read your comments. (But be careful who else sees them!)