Tillman Family is McChrystal-Clear
When NFL player-turned-Army Ranger Pat Tillman died at the hands of US troops in a case of "friendly fire," the spin machine at the Pentagon went into overdrive. Rumsfeld and company couldn't have their most high-profile soldier dying in such an inelegant fashion, especially with the release of those pesky photos from Abu Ghraib hitting the airwaves. So an obscene lie was told to Tillman's family, his friends and the American public. The chickenhawks in charge, whose only exposure to war was watching John Wayne movies, claimed that he died charging a hill and was cut down by the radical Islamic enemies of freedom. In the weeks preceding his death, Tillman was beginning to question what exactly he was fighting for, telling friends that he believed the war in Iraq was " [expletive] illegal." He may not have known what he was fighting for, but it's now clear what he died for: public relations. Today, after five years, six investigations and two Congressional hearings, questions still linger about how Tillman died and why it was covered up.
Now the man who greased the chain of command that orchestrated this great deception is prepared to assume total control of US operations in Afghanistan: Lt. Gen. Stanley McChrystal. It was McChrystal who approved Tillman's posthumous Silver Star, a medal given explicitly for combat, even though he later testified that he "suspected" friendly fire.
Yet despite this, both Democrats and Republicans are rushing to heap praise on McChrystal, including Sen. John McCain. It was McCain who rushed to speak at Tillman's funeral and then, when the cover-up became known, pledged to help the Tillman family expose the truth. McCain later turned his back on the Tillmans when they raised the volume and demanded answers. As Pat's mother, Mary Tillman, said last year, "He definitely eased out of the situation. He didn't blatantly say he wouldn't help us, it's just that it became clear that he kind of drifted away."
And now the Tillman family, amidst bipartisan praise for Obama's new general, must once again raise the inconvenient truth.
Pat's father, Pat Tillman Sr., told the Associated Press, "I do believe that guy participated in a falsified homicide investigation."
Mary Tillman, who excoriated McChrystal in her book, Boots on the Ground by Dusk: My Tribute to Pat Tillman, said, "It is imperative that Lt. Gen. McChrystal be scrutinized carefully during the Senate hearings."
Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell said in response:
We feel terrible for what the Tillman family went through, but this matter has been investigated thoroughly by the Pentagon, by the Congress, by outside experts, and all of them have come to the same conclusion: that there was no wrongdoing by Gen. McChrystal.
Morrell's statement has more spin than a washing machine powered by a V-8 engine. McChrystal has never explained why the early reports of Tillman's death were covered up, why his clothes and field journal were burned and destroyed on the scene or why Pat's brother Kevin, serving alongside him in the Rangers, was lied to on the spot. Even the cover-up was covered up. This should be a cause for dismissal--or indictment--not promotion.
What particularly rankles about Obama's choice of McChrystal, whose background is in the nefarious and shadowy world of "black ops," is that his actions in the Tillman cover-up feel emblematic instead of exceptional.
When an anonymous Army interrogator "at great personal risk" blew the whistle to Esquire in August 2006 on an extensive torture enterprise at Camp Nama, he described the then unknown McChrystal as being an overseer who knew the ugly truth. Torture at Camp Nama included using ice water to induce hypothermia. It was not a rogue operation unless we consider Generals like McChrystal "rogues." As Esquire reported:
Once, somebody brought it up with the colonel. "Will [the Red Cross] ever be allowed in here?" And he said absolutely not. He had this directly from General McChrystal and the Pentagon that there's no way that the Red Cross could get in--they won't have access and they never will. This facility was completely closed off to anybody investigating, even Army investigators.
Later in the piece, when asked where the colonel was getting his orders from the interrogator said, "I believe it was a two-star general. I believe his name was General McChrystal. I saw him there a couple of times."
Clearly President Obama is trying to "own" the war in Afghanistan: upping the troop levels, making it his "central front" in the battle against terrorism and now placing his own general in charge. But the president is also disappointing a generation of antiwar activists who voted for him expecting an end to imperial adventures and torture sanctioned by the executive branch. Now a man who should perhaps be on trial at the Hague is in charge of Afghanistan. Obama needs to know it's not just the Tillmans who are enraged by this terrible choice.
13 Reader Comments | Add a comment
That's why I voted Nader. Change will never come with our ONE party system.
I am truly outraged and disappointed that Barrack Obama is upping the ante in Afghanistan rather than sending in civil brigades to help strictly with humanitarian aide.The infrastructure in Afghanistan has been in shambles forever and the very last thing Afghanistan needs is U.S. intervention from the military.Remember,Obama is still a politician hooked up to the military establishment and he is not likely to change his course.Therefore,we must hold him accountable(I actually voted for Obama)and begin demonstrating just like we did for the ominous war in Iraq.And yes,I am in support to the Tillman's, and may they somehow one day get an official response from the White House acknowledging their outrageous blunder.Hopefully,thousands of more citizens will feel the outrage of what is now happening in Afghanistan and call for no more occupation by the military in Afgnanistan.
Thanks for having this column.Steve
Let's not forget that the Bush administration lied to and deceived the American public in many different ways and have not been punished for it. That being said, it is extremely disappointing, but not surprising, to see President Obama recycle all these old, corrupt faces.
I'm intrigued by the "ONE Party" comment. You might have a point.
I suggest we take a closer look at the irony of "grassroots" organizing whose aims were somewhat incongruous with the ultimate result. Cooperative decisionmaking at the local and regional level seems fairly uncontroversial for most but when it comes to national policy, we fall into the trap of relegating decisions to handfuls of individuals without much accountability built in.
Honestly, I can't use change. I need a whole new wallet.
Conspiracy Brother...
The "one party" paradigm is well-defined by Gore Vidal who says (and I paraphrase) that this nation operates under a one party system - one party with two wings: the reactionary wing (Republicans) and the conservative wing (Democrats) - and that both wings answer to the same corporate masters who are positioned in a pyramid, with the military industrial complex at the top and then we can all fill in the usual suspects below that.
Fascism is the ugly word not used to define this model. The US media (aka Pravda-West) spins fairy tale narratives and euphemisms to frame their one party corporatist state.
Excellent column as usual, Dave.
My only question is this: If Pat Tillman had been a star burger flipper at A&W, instead of a football player, would this be a story?
In other words, there are a lot of soldiers getting blown away by so-called "friendly fire" and no one could care less about it, other than their family and friends.
Time to bring the troops back home,
Attention afghanis: If you value your testicles or have an acute fear of drowning I recommened that you avoid being seen with the wrong people for the next little while. Although prisoners in places like Bagram have not exactly gotten gentle treatment thus far (see the excellent film "taxi to the dark side" if you have any doubts), it is obvious that the appointment of this careerist, amoral sleazebag portends the implementation of gitmo-style tactics. The counterinsurgency is on people and it will get uglier before it gets prettier. After a year or two of this Obama may go to the pentagon to try to return the war he apparently is so eager to "own".
Memo to the Tillman family:
My heart goes out. The war in Iraq, and the shameful policies of administrations past, remain a dark chapter in the book called Democracy. The subtitled should read " How Bush, Bandar ( google Bandar Bush), and Cheney, destabilized America. From what I have read, Pat Tillman is a real american hero. Not just because he died in combat, but because he walked knowingly into the fray. America needs to remember Pat Tillman. I've said it before, and I will say it again, "Dave Zirin spotlights the stories that America tries to forget.
Nathan
Pat Tillman is not a hero. America's so-called brave men and women in Iraq & Afghanistan are not heroes. The occupations and slaughters carried out by the American Empire are not rooted in "liberty" and "democracy" or any other bedtime fairy tale - they are Crusade-like business ventures by the usual vultures... and it's all wrapped inside jingoistic Twinkies that will go down easy for the culpable American public. Another instance where propaganda helps make the unthinkable normal.
Pat Tillman and his brethren are hired gunmen... same tired story: old men sending young men to kill and die in pursuit of gold.
The heroes in yet another sad chapter of American history are the men and women who don't go to war, the ones who say hell no, the returning veterans who have seen the light and say no, no more, not again.
this isnt a world in black and white, many people turn to the armed forces for different reasons,
and while were at it, let me ask you this, have you ever had a relative, or even close friend that has died in any war?
while im not condoning anybodys actions, we need to see both sides of the story,
this is like vietnam, while this war is another one of many that are morally quesitonable,
maybe we should take a step back, and not blame the men and women following orders, but those issuing the orders.
war is 99% waiting and 1% sheer terror,
that terror would be enough to fill our lives, yours, and mine.
Jaydee
Your response is a bit haphazard but I'll try.
Point 1: in many respects when it comes to war, the world is black and white - or more appropriately life and death... if you need colors, how's red for the bloody entrails left in the wake of any war. And yes, many people do turn to the military for different reasons - lack of economic justice, educational justice, lies-propaganda-and downright brainwashing... and let's not forget that there is no draft but in essence the American military's recruitment practices are the equivalent of a poor people's draft - and the people are usually brown or black.
Point 2: Yes, yes, and then one lost both legs in Korea - so, no, you're not interacting with a pacifist chickenhawk.
Point 3: Tell me what's the other side of slaughter, occupation, murder and mayhem in Iraq and Afghanistan? Charlie Manson killed about 10 people and he's a "monster" - on most days the US Military does that before breakfast. "Oops, we're sorry, wrong coordinates, collateral damage, but don't worry about your 40 or 50 family members, you'll thank us in the end. God bless you and God bless the United States of America" Ever check out the real Iraqi casualty numbers since American war criminals pulled the trigger?
Point 4: Can't answer this, not sure what it means
Point 5: Donovan answers this succinctly:
"Without him Caesar would have stood alone,
He's the one who gives his body
As a weapon of the war,
And without him all this killing can't go on"
Just calling it your job doesn't make it right.
Point 6: It's the sheer terror part we agree on
Point 7: These outstanding sentiments should be directed at the people of Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Latin America - the list goes on.
Peace Jaydee...
i agree withyou, i just wish you werent so quick to write off EVERY service member as a monster, though few are saints.
El Haij Malik El Shabazz said, "They`re playing a giant con game, a political con game, you know how it goes. One of them comes to you and make believe he`s for you and he`s in cahoots with the other one that`s not for you, why? Because neither one is for you but they got to make you go with one of them or the other. So this is a con game and this is what they`ve been doing to you and me all these years."
13 Reader Comments | Add a comment
PLEASE NOTE: This forum is for dialog between Edge of Sports readers. Discuss!
Submit your comment below:
Dave Zirin is the author of the book: "Welcome to the Terrordome: The Pain, Politics and Promise of Sports" (Haymarket). You can receive his column Edge of Sports, every week by going to dave@edgeofsports.com.
Become an Edge of Sports Sustainer (Click Here)
Contact him at edgeofsports@gmail.com
Support the Work
Please consider making a donation to keep this site going.
Become an Edge of Sports Sustainer (Click Here)
