Insubordination?Should Gen. McChrystal stop speaking publicly about Afghan war strategy?
Posted Tuesday, Oct. 6, 2009, at 4:45 PM ET
Gen. Stanley McChrystal, U.S. commander in Afghanistan, set off the rumbles of a political storm last week by saying publicly, during a speech in London, that a more limited strategy than the one he's proposing would lead to failure in the war against the Taliban.
Was McChrystal exercising his right to free speech and his obligation to express his honest military judgment—or was he broaching the military chain of command and the constitutional principle of civilian control over the armed forces?
Discussion of his speech also invoked memories of the six retired generals who publicly criticized President George W. Bush's defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld in the spring of 2006 for his decisions in the Iraq war—especially his failure to send enough troops to topple Saddam Hussein and to impose order afterward.
PRINT
DISCUSS
E-MAIL
RSS
RECOMMEND...
Facebook
MySpace
Mixx
Digg
Reddit
del.icio.us
Furl
Ma.gnolia
Sphere
StumbleUponSome hailed the retired generals as heroes; others criticized them for not putting up a tougher fight against Rumsfeld while they were still on active duty and thus in a position of influence—or for not resigning in protest and speaking out in public before the war got under way.
Was McChrystal merely doing what some of the Iraq-era generals wish they had done sooner? Or are there important distinctions to be drawn?
McChrystal made his speech soon after the Washington Post printed a leaked copy of his 66-page memo to President Barack Obama, in which he recommended the adoption of a full-blown counterinsurgency strategy, which would require, among other things, a long commitment and many more U.S. troops—and stating that failure to provide sufficient troops would result in defeat. (Though the memo cited no numbers, McChrystal will reportedly urge Obama to send another 40,000 troops on top of the 60,000 already there.)
The leak and the speech came in the wake of President Obama's announcement that he was reassessing the entire strategy for the Afghan war, including options that would entail a smaller increase of troops than McChrystal is suggesting or perhaps no increase at all. A strategic review of all options was, and still is, going on, with Obama consulting his top civilian and military advisers.
It should be noted that McChystal made his controversial comment during the question-and-answer period, not in the text of the speech itself (which had been approved at higher levels). It is not at all clear—in fact, it is rather doubtful—that, at this point anyway, McChrystal is a conscious dissident.
Still, the key moment came when someone in the audience asked him whether a pared-down counterterrorism strategy would work in Afghanistan—a strategy merely of hunting down Taliban fighters rather than a counterinsurgency strategy, which would focus on protecting the Afghan population. McChrystal replied, "The short answer is: No."
He didn't mention any officials, but it is well-known that Vice President Joe Biden has been pushing for just such a pared-down strategy and that the option, among others, has been discussed in President Obama's strategic-review sessions.
As a sign of how seriously this breech in the chain of command is being taken, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates said on Monday, in the middle of an otherwise routine speech to the Association of the U.S. Army:
[I]t is imperative that all of us taking part in these deliberations—civilian and military alike—provide our best advice to the president candidly but privately. And speaking for the Department of Defense, once the commander-in-chief makes his decisions, we will salute and execute those decisions faithfully and to the best of our ability.
(Gates' spokesman, Geoff Morrell, later said the comment was not directed at McChrystal specifically, but the message was clear.)
Some officers or officials are clearly trying to pressure Obama into sending more troops. (That was almost certainly the intent behind the leaking of McChrystal's memo.) If Obama rejects their advice, what options do they have before them?
Two principles are hammered into the minds and reflexes of every American military officer, and at certain times they collide and spark tension. Both take off from the premise of civilian control over the military, a premise taken very seriously by everyone.
Is It More Important for Your Turkey To Be Organic or Local?
Why Gift Cards Are a Terrible Gift
Is Sarah Palin's Approval Rating Really as High as Barack Obama's?
Justice Scalia's Most Eccentric Habits
How Do You Know Whether a Sleepwalking Murderer Was Really Asleep?
Democrats Have a Lot To Be Thankful For
The retired generals who criticized Rumsfeld were outside the chain of command, responsible to nobody but themselves. As long as they don't claim to speak as representatives of active duty officers, they have the same First Amendment rights as abybody else and no duty of obedience to offset it.
McChrystal is on active duty. His obligation is to serve the Commander in Chief by giving the best possible advice and then carrying out his orders. His only other superior is Congress, and he has an obligation to give them the best available advice and information when asked, as Shinseki did in the run-up to the Iraq War. Neither he nor any other serving officer has the right to appeal over the heads of his civilian superiors to the general public in order to put pressure on them, as both MacArthur and McClellan tried to do. Down that road -- a long way down, to be sure -- lies a banana republic where the opinion of the officer corps is factor in politics.
Until proven otherwise, I'm willing to give McChrystal individually the benefit of the doubt and assume that he didn't realize the political consequences of what he said in London.
-- jack_cerf
(To reply, click here)
"Not every officer agrees with all nine of Wong and Lovelace's options. Some officers draw a line between disputes that involve policy and those that involve military tactics and strategy. Some note that the line between policy and strategy is a fine one, and they wonder where to draw it. In part for this reason, some officers believe that they shouldn't publicly criticize a president's policies under any circumstances."
The above brings up the issue that it is always different for the fellow sitting on the hot seat. It's fine to speculate what one would or would not do if presented with a certain problem set, but it is something else when actually facing the reality.
It's rather rare that a upper level officer finds himself in a standoff between lawful orders and the politically-based decisions of the handful of politicians who can ruin his career or outright dismiss him from service. Like coming under fire, nobody really knows what he will do until it happens.
Whether or not General McChrystal is doing the right thing he is following the dictates of his conscience and trying to look out for the best interests of the personnel under his command and the mission as he currently understands it.
Whether or not President Obama is worth a damn as a war president he has the right to retain McChrystal or dismiss him. As it was with Bush and Rumsfeld, history will arrive at a judgment on these issues in the due course of time.
-- Gatewood
(To reply, click here)