In a June 23 Op-Ed in the Los Angeles Times, Dr. Bruce Ackerman “banners” his piece, ”Army Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal’s criticism of Obama administration officials symbolizes an accelerated partisanship of the officer corps,” and continues:
It is tempting to compare Army Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal’s criticism of Obama administration officials to Gen. Douglas MacArthur’s defiance of President Truman during the Korean War. But something important has changed over the last 60 years. Although MacArthur challenged Truman, the larger officer corps was then thoroughly committed to principles of civilian control. But today, McChrystal’s actions are symptomatic of a broader politicization of the military command.
He continues to provide purported “evidence” of such politicization of the military.
Others have jumped on the bandwagon in attempts to find something more sinister and political in what was a straightforward disciplinary action by the commander-in-chief.
Don’t take it from me on rebutting such allegations and insinuations.
Col. Stuart K. Archer, a 25-year veteran of the U.S. Air Force and a command pilot currently serving in Southwest Asia, takes issue with Ackerman’s remarks.
In a piece published today in the LA Times “Blowback” section,” One outspoken general does not make a politicized military,” the colonel expresses his personal views.
He begins as follows:
A June 23 op-ed by Bruce Ackerman that portrayed civil-military relations against the backdrop of the Gen. McChrystal affair is wildly off the mark. Dr. Ackerman’s commentary presumes a rapid politicization of the U.S. military and a foreboding future of a biased officer corps involved in political partisanship. To the contrary, the vast majority of military officers are well disciplined in the principle of civilian control of the military. Modern military officers are purposefully educated on its tenets and governed by strict codes of conduct. Gen. McChrystal’s regrettable actions are in no way symptomatic of a politicized officer corps.
Archer continues to describe the fundamental (and Constitutional) concept of civilian control of the military, a concept that officers are legally obligated to support, including through the Uniform Code of Military Conduct: “When an officer fails to adhere to the standards set forth in these regulations, he or she is immediately disciplined.”
He also discusses the freedom the military have for “holding opinions or engaging in discourse on political or current events,” and the fact that “[c]ontrary to Dr. Ackerman’s assessment, the future for civil-military relations is actually quite encouraging.”
Archer concludes:
America should be absolutely confident that its military officer corps is committed to avoiding partisanship and meddling in political affairs. The mild ranting and frustrations of a senior officer should not deter them in that confidence. In fact, Gen. McChrystal’s apology and acknowledgement of responsibility for inappropriate conduct, combined with the rapid acceptance by the officer corps of his removal, should serve to reinforce that fact. Dr. Ackerman’s call for a presidential commission on civil-military relations might well be welcomed by the military because it would undoubtedly show that all the services’ officers corps clearly recognize their subordination to civilian control and the importance of avoiding partisan political affairs.
Thank you, Colonel, for your service and for setting the military record straight.
The author is a retired U.S. Air Force officer and a writer.