An Internet hub for moderates, centrists, and independents, with domestic and international news, analysis, original reporting, and popular features from the left, center, and right

Is McChrystal out of line?

Mike O’Hanlon says no. Eugene Robinson says,

The men with the stars on their shoulders — and I say this with enormous respect for their patriotism and service — need to shut up and salute.

Robinson adds that he applies the same standard to military officers whose opinions he agrees with. Clearly, Robinson shares the suspicion of many, including myself, that opinions about civil-military relations constantly flip as a result of partisan realignments. When George Bush went against his generals’ advice and ordered the surge, weren’t Republicans celebrating civilian supremacy while Democrats insisted we must listen to the generals?

Before that, it was Bush who insisted on the importance of listening to the generals. And before that, it was Democrats who celebrated generals like Eric Shinseki, who earned his place in Obama’s cabinet by saying things that displeased the Bush administration.

What I don’t know is whether specific individuals, whether in government or media, have reversed their positions on civil-military relations in order to advance a partisan interest. Those Republicans who favor listening to the generals may simply be silent now, while those Democrats who favor civilian supremacy were equally silent when Bush ordered the surge. Strange as it may seem, a party can contradict itself without having any of its members compromise their personal reputations (although some of them presumably have.)

Cross-posted at Conventional Folly

  • superdestroyer
    GD,

    The White House skipped over the chain of command and want to McChrystal directly so that Patreus would be left out of the loop. The White House is also confusing policy with implementation. The White House should decide what they want the mission to be and leave it to the military and diplomats to implement the policy.

    It appears that the White House staff wants to set the policy but then hamstring the operators on the ground. This could easily be an Axelrod plan so that the White House can blame the military for any failures but so that the White House can take credit for any successes.

    If two people in a row have to be fired, my guess is that it is management that is having the problem and not the subordinate.
  • JeffersonDavis
    Well said, Green. Great analogy!
  • SD, I'm pretty sure you're not as stupid as you act sometimes. Maybe you understand businesses better than the military, so I'll use an analogy. If some sharp and talented young marketer wants the CEO to try a particular campaign, she proposes it through channels. If she goes on TV and says "Ford really needs to try my 'Chevy Sucks' ad campaign, or Ford will likely fail," she's history. You get fired for taking an internal discussion public.
  • superdestroyer
    It was just a couple of months ago that the media was singing the praises of Gen. McChrystal as they were criticizing his fired predecessor. However, now that he delivered the wrong message to the Obama Administration, the same media is more than happy to shoot the messenger.

    If President Obama and his staff do not want to listen to those on the ground, then why invite them to brief the White House staff.
  • JeffersonDavis
    General McCrystal should retire immediately.

    Any General that subverts the chain of command should be fired or retired immediately. That's goes for Generals serving democrat or republican presidents. To tell your Commander in Chief what he doesn't want to hear is admirable (a yes-man as general get's thousands killed); but to tell the same thing to the public is inexcusable.
  • HemmD
    casual
    "For these kind of stakes, one man's insubordination is another man's courageous act. "

    Tell it to MacArthur. If you want to affect political policy, become politician; otherwise, fade away.
  • casualobserver
    It's now a no win situation for Obama........at best an uncomfortable draw.

    You don't rise to McChrystal's level by being oblivious. He either wins his wants from Obama or prepares to take a hike.

    For these kind of stakes, one man's insubordination is another man's courageous act. And since Obama appointed the guy to take over AfPak, Obama can now only be one of three things in this matter.....lousy at making personnel choices, lousy at adhering to his own prior decisions or lousy at making tough decisions.
  • NotFullyBaked
    And, the Military as a whole would understand if McChrystal was retired for this insubordination.
  • NotFullyBaked
    Certainly Gen. McChrystal sought to affect the political process by taking decision making out into the public. But his transgression doesn't hardly compare with Gen. Petraeus' insertion of himself into the general election in 2004 through his Op-Ed supporting the then current administration. Petraeus should have been fired forthwith (there is certainly precedent for this), but then again, he was Bush's man.
  • I don't think the military is "disloyal," but yes, McChrystal was probably out of line, unless he had clearance through channels to speak out.
  • Father_Time
    Shinseki made his comments as ordered by Congress and after he had retired. Right or wrong, the people through their elected representatives make law and policy, NEVER the military. Sad thing is, the military knows this and their disloyalty is becoming obvious to America.
  • Father_Time
    Making public comments to effect political pressure on the President of the United States for the purpose of making policy according to what the military wants is Treason according to the Constitution, not patriotism. It suggests military control exists over the United States government. Generals make their policy opinions known to the Public at the President’s pleasure, or as ordered to testify before Congress, NOT on their own.

    I am very ashamed of the general for his unsolicited public comments. I am very ashamed of the secretary of defense and the joint chiefs for not immediately defending the President and thus the people of the United States by taking decisive and public action against the general for his disloyalty.

    I cannot help but remember President Eisenhower’s dire warning about the military industrial complex and I wonder if his predictions of national military control is not beginning to happen.
  • GeorgeSorwell
    Shinseki turned out to be right, didn't he?
blog comments powered by Disqus
© 2005-2009 The Moderate Voice | Site design by Elegant Themes | Site customization, hosting, and security by Enxit Group, LLC