The Operators: The Wild and Terrifying Inside Story of America's War in Afghanistan [ハードカバー]

There are two distinct narratives to this mostly excellent book.

In one, Hastings recaps and expands on his embedded assignment alongside Gen. Stanley McChrystal's team as they traveled Europe and Afghanistan. A variety of inappropriate conversations later reported in Rolling Stone ended up leading to McC's dismissal as Afghanistan war commander. In the second, he presents an after-the-fact roundup of reporting on the Afghanistan situation, and other events in DC.

The book will be reviewed by any number of audiences with preconceived opinions.

There is a set of people who view what Hastings wrote as an attack on the military, which it isn't. Or, that he betrayed his source's confidence, which he didn't - they had to have known he was recording and writing notes. That's what a reporter does, after all, didn't they know it? Or they thought the same relationship that always works would work again - you hang out, you have some late night conversations, you trade stories and you bond...and when the writing's being done, then the reporter should know what to leave in, what to leave out. It always worked before, so why didn't it work now? I'm sure Duncan Boothby, McC's PAO, wondered that when he was resigning.

It didn't work, because Hastings is not Bob Woodward - he's not protecting access by protecting the bridge against enemies from either side. He burned the bridge with everyone, including him, on it. That's what the most honest reporter does - tells the story that he/she sees, and worries about the truth first and last...and relationships nowhere. The reportees aren't called friends, after all - they're called 'sources.'

Hastings shows this in a section where he presents a blistering critique of war reporters in general. He writes, quoting someone else, but it's really Hastings' point: "They...are invested in being war correspondents. They are invested in the myth of it. They wake up every day and they buff their armor. They make it nice and shiny."

I've actually been an embedded photojournalist several times in Iraq - so there's no way I read a passage like that and not take it personally. But that's fine; I get his point and I can take it. I do think his contempt would have been stronger if he had turned that criticism on himself a little more.

The part of the book that deals with the McChrystal embed is the best. He sticks to what's said and heard, and usually lets the words and observations stand on their own. He provides analysis and conclusions, but he sticks to the evidence at hand. He's documented it, whether written or recorded. Nobody disputed that what was said WAS said - people are simply upset that he actually reported the truthful, embarrassing words. McC's team clearly wanted to get a boost into pop culture by bringing a Rolling Stone reporter along - so they were trying to use Hastings as much/more than Hastings was using them. This is what an embed is like.

Sometimes I wonder, though, if the conversations he reports have enough meat on them to merit all this attention. Just because two people are talking in a room doesn't make it news, and McC's team reserved their derision for their superiors - never those below. Don't we all complain about our bosses? Does it really matter? I don't entirely have an answer.

The book also has after-the-fact reporting about the situation in Afghanistan. Because Hastings is not present for all of the events, it doesn't have the same urgency or passion. It's interesting, but nothing I hadn't read before. The part of the book most compelling and interesting is the embedded narrative where Hastings story IS the story.

There are a couple big missing parts. The first would-be publisher of this book dropped it - why? What happened? And, at what point did Hastings know he had a book deal? If he went in knowing that a high-paying book deal depended on getting some money quotes, that's relevant to the reader. He does not address any of that at all.

Hastings is absolutely right about the "media-military-industrial complex." While we have a "free" press, all that means is reporters are not censored by the government - they do it to themselves. Reporters protect sources, leave out embarrassing info, and work to guarantee a new story that will never quite make enough waves to get anyone in too much trouble. So Sarah Palin can be attacked all day long, but military leaders are above reproach? Absurd.

In the days ahead, there will be the usual harrumphing about how Hastings "blew his chance, and nobody will trust him, and sources will never talk to him now."

Spare me - they'll line up to talk to him, because the challenge works both ways. They think they'll be the one that Hastings makes the hero in his next book. The source wants to talk, they always want to talk.

Great book and powerful reporting about truths that people wanted hidden - while the after-the-fact reporting slows it down, his description of the embed itself is enlightening, controversial, impressive and honest. If a reporter doesn't report what they see and hear, then they didn't report anything at all - and Hastings did that in spades.

I picked up a copy yesterday in Barnes and Noble and just couldn't put it down. I was interested because of all of the press this story received when the magazine article came out and I wanted to get the behind the scenes account. It turned out to be much more than that.

Hastings provides a portrait of "The Operators"--the people fighting, covering, and making decisions about our war in Afghanistan. I don't usually read foreign policy type books, but this brought everything to a human level. He shows us the general and his staff as highly intelligent, motivated people trying to do their best with a war they don't necessarily even believe in. He shows how the general's policies are interpreted and acted on by the soldiers on the ground. This was the most moving part of the book--showing the real price of the war. And then he reflects--more honestly than he should probably--about the media's role in the whole thing. And he gives the Afghani's point of view.

I've noticed a lot of heated opinions about this book, but coming from someone who is neither a democrat nor republican, I thoroughly enjoyed it on its own merits as a book that caused me to reflect and reconsider some of my beliefs about the media, military, and politicians. A story about human beings in an intense and dangerous environment.

You may remember how back in 2010 an article in Rolling Stone got General Stanley McChrystal fired from his job running the war in Afghanistan. McChrystal and his team were presented as arrogant, free-wheeling and insubordinate, bashing the President, as well as the civilian leadership. I remember finding very little surprising about how McChrystal was portrayed in the article -- but I'm a cynic, it's my belief that most people who hold powerful positions tend to be burdened with hubris and incompetence. The fact that this is true, but is rarely reported in the media due to the cozy relationship between the power brokers and the court stenographers, is what really caused the firestorm. It wasn't so much that Hastings' story was true that upset so many in Washington, it was that he had the temerity to put the truth in print.

The Operators is a book-length version of the Rolling Stone article, covering the first few years of the Obama administration's efforts in Afghanistan. And those looking for a hero in the story are going to have a hard time finding one. Even Hastings, the narrator and ostensible protagonist, isn't particularly likable.

The war Hastings describes is one dominated by political infighting, with various factions hidden away inside their own insulated bubbles, incapable of recognizing the truth, or refusing to admit the truth when it conflicts with ideology. The Obama administration comes off as weak and ineffective, the Afghan government as corrupt and impossibly incompetent, and the American military as an isolated culture more concerned by its own inner workings and politics than whether or not it can achieve actual "success" in a country as thoroughly broken as Afghanistan (or even what "success" might mean). The media gets the worst of the criticism though, compromising its professional integrity in exchange for access to the people in power. The only people presented at all sympathetically are the individual American soldiers and infantry units who face the true reality on the ground every day.

It's hard to come away from The Operators feeling like there's any hope -- not just for America in Afghanistan, but for our ability to accomplish anything substantial on a large scale. The dysfunction in America seems baked into our DNA, with political polarization and personal ambition overriding any sense of the greater good. Granted, this is just one person's view of the situation in Afghanistan, but given that no one is treated terribly well, it's hard not to believe that The Operators may be close to the truth.