The
publication of General Stanley A. McChrystal’s
confidential assessment of the situation in Afghanistan has
precipitated much tut-tutting by the chattering classes. The
consensus seems to be that the leak of this document (to the
Washington Post’s esteemed Bob Woodward) was an
unconscionable violation of professional ethics, a hindrance to
good government, and a threat to harmonious civil-military
relations. Duke University political science professor Peter
Feaver has well
summed up the conventional wisdom:
It is not good to have a document like this leaked into the
public debate before the President has made his decision.
Whether you favor ramping up or ramping down or ramping
laterally, as a process matter, the Commander-in-Chief ought to
be able to conduct internal deliberations on sensitive matters
without it appearing concurrently on the front pages of the
Post. I assume the Obama team is very angry about this, and I
think they have every right to be.
Feaver never explains why, in an advanced democracy with an
educated citizenry, the commander-in-chief “ought to be able to
conduct internal deliberations on sensitive matters [of public
policy] without it appearing concurrently on the front pages” of
a major newspaper.
This may be because Feaver is a former National Security Council
official in both the Clinton and Bush 43 administrations. As
such, he may be accustomed to wielding power behind the scenes
without much public scrutiny or public accountability. He thus
likely prefers secret government to public government.
But just because U.S. government officials are accustomed to
doing things discreetly, behind the scenes, and without much
public notice doesn’t mean that that is the best way to conduct
the affairs of state. In fact, a strong counter argument can and
should be made: “Sunlight is the best disinfectant,” said the
renowned Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis.
Indeed, would Iran-Contra, and its consequent marring of the
Reagan administration, have occurred if the idea of engaging
Iranian regime “moderates” had first been exposed to public
scrutiny?
Would the CIA have made (as it did during the Cold War)
ridiculous and wildly inaccurate estimates of Soviet and East
European economic prowess had their analyses been subject to
independent, outside peer review? Would Congress have permitted
the surge if General Petraeus had not publicly testified about
the situation in Iraq?
The answers to these three telling questions is likely, “No, no
and no.” This is important because, as Newsweek reporter
Howard Fineman
observes:
The way we have to make policy and get close to the truth is
through the process of argument. And rather than arguing too
much, which is the conventional wisdom — you hear a lot of
hand-wringing about it; ‘oh, can’t we all just get together and
be nice’ — the fact is we can’t; that’s not the way we
operate. And rather than argue too much, I don’t think we argue
enough about the fundamental things.
This is why General McChrystal welcomes a vigorous and robust
public discussion about Afghanistan. He understands how American
democracy works. He understands that informed and well-considered
decisions are more likely to be wise and efficacious decisions.
“The process of going through a very detailed policy level debate
is incredibly important and incredibly healthy,” the general
said during his
speech last week at the International Institute for Strategic
Studies in London.
Publication of the general’s confidential Afghan assessment
greatly facilitates this debate because it makes this debate
accessible to the public. In fact, it involves the public in the
debate. And, in an advanced democracy with an educated citizenry,
this is as it should be. No one, after all, has a monopoly on
wisdom; and so, truly, there is wisdom in numbers.
Sure, public deliberation can complicate things for government
officials. No government official, after all, likes to be
second-guessed or preempted. “Leaks like this make it harder for
the Commander-in-Chief to do deliberate national security
planning,” Feaver whines.
Too bad. That’s what democracy is all about: empowering the
public and giving people a voice in the public policy process. In
the immortal words of President Harry Truman, “If you can’t stand
the heat, get out of the kitchen.”
Indeed, if a president and his team cannot handle the heat of
public scrutiny and public involvement, then they are not fit to
preside over the executive branch of the United States
government. Our republican form of government, after all, is
based on democratic self-rule, or rule by the people.
In fairness to President Obama and his team, they are not
complaining about the leak of McChrystal’s Afghan assessment to
the Washington Post; the chattering classes, led by
people like Feaver, are.
Feaver, for instance, complains that “the leak makes it harder
for President Obama to reject a McChrystal request for additional
troops because the assessment so clearly argues for them.”
Yes, it does, but that’s not because McChrystal is engaged in
some Washington political game of the kind that preoccupies the
chattering classes along the Potomac. Au contraire:
McChrystal is faithfully reporting the facts on the ground in
Afghanistan, which lead to one inescapable conclusion: If you
want to stabilize Afghanistan and drive out from that country the
Taliban and al-Qaeda, then you must employ a classic
counterinsurgency campaign, which will necessitate tens of
thousands of more troops.
As the commander on the ground who is responsible for the safety
and well-being of young American servicemen and women who are now
risking their lives in a combat zone, General McChrystal has a
solemn obligation to report the facts as he sees them — and to
do so without favor or prejudice, and without fear or concern for
any potential political ramifications back home. McChrystal,
remember, is a general, not a politician, and thank goodness for
that.
Feaver’s argument, then, is with the facts on the ground, not
General McChrystal. His complaint is with the message (or
reality), not the messenger.
Yet, Yale University Law Professor Bruce Ackerman insists that
McChrystal is engaged in a “characteristic [Washington] power
play… to pressure the President to adopt his strategy. This,”
Ackerman
writes, “is a plain violation of the principle of civilian
control” of the military.
No, it’s not — and it’s disconcerting that a Yale Law professor
would try to justify squelching the thoughts and insights of a
top military leader at a time of momentous national and
international significance. Ackerman confuses free speech and
open debate with executive control and authority.
General McChrystal clearly is not questioning the President’s
authority; quite the contrary. He explicitly recognizes that, as
Commander-in-Chief, President Obama has the final say about what
U.S. policy and objectives will be in Afghanistan. But General
McChrystal also recognizes that before the President makes his
decision, the President, the Congress and the American people all
ought to hear from the troops on the ground — and especially
from their lead commander on the ground.
Far from somehow “boxing in” the President, McChrystal instead is
informing the American people and their elected representatives
about the facts on the ground and what, in his judgment, must be
done in Afghanistan. This is a public service that warrants
praise and commendation, not rebuke and scorn.
As for the President, well Defense Secretary Robert Gates
put it well: “The President always has a choice; he’s the
Commander-in-Chief.”
Policymakers like Feaver often don’t like public dialogue and
debate because it can make their jobs more difficult; but again,
that’s too bad. Welcome to America. Welcome to democracy. Welcome
to self-rule, civic argument and civic discourse. Here the people
rule, and thank goodness for that.
Thus, what some allege is a “breakdown in civil-military
relations” is, in fact, a pure fiction. Conflict and disagreement
are endemic to the American way life and to the American form of
government. “We were born and bred to argue,” Fineman explains.
We were born and bred to argue because the American founding
fathers recognized that argument is not insubordination, and
disagreement is not disloyalty. Yet, we too often lose sight of
this reality and thus sometimes try to censor dissent and free
speech. Censorship is what happens when, for instance, government
officials try to stamp out “leaks” — aka the sharing of
information with the American people.
Stifling dissent and free speech is unwise because it denies us
the free thought and analysis that are integral to sound
decision-making. Again, none of us has a monopoly on wisdom; and
so, truly, there is wisdom in numbers. There is wisdom in the
cacophony of voices that result from free and open dialogue and
debate.
Thus, the President will make his decision about what do in
Afghanistan. General McChrystal will accept and salute the
President’s decision, because that is what American Generals
always do. However, if General McChrystal believes that he cannot
execute the President’s policy with the troops and resources
given to him, then the right and honorable thing for him to do is
to resign.
The reason to resign is not to cause the President political
difficulties, though political difficulties may result from the
General’s resignation.
The reason to resign is that, as the commander on the ground,
General McChrystal has taken a solemn oath to lead young men and
women in battle. And if, as their commander, he truly believes
that he cannot achieve victory with the resources given him, then
it is unconscionable for him to send his young charges into
battle under-resourced and under-manned.
In short, a decision to resign is about honor and integrity, not
politics and partisanship. Civil-military relations in America,
moreover, are fine. Our military and civilian leaders are big
enough, mature enough and wise enough to handle dissent and
disagreement.
Our republican system of government allows for, and even
encourages, dissent and disagreement. General McChrystal
understands this, and it seems that at least some of our civilian
leaders in the Obama administration do as well. Here the people
rule.
As for Bob Woodward and the Washington Post, they are to
be commended for publishing General McChrystal’s confidential
assessment of the situation in Afghanistan. Doing so was a public
service which has aided and abetted American democracy. We need
more such leaks, more such newspaper reports, and a more robust
and better informed public discussion about the great issues of
our time. Bring it on.
