A Further Perspective
Free General McChrystal
U.S. Military Leaders should be encouraged to speak publicly about Afghanistan and other military matters.
Do U.S. military leaders have a right to speak publicly about wartime requirements and defense policy? A growing number of commentators, on both the left and the right, say that they do not.
Generals need to “shut up and salute,” writes Washington Post columnist Eugene Robinson. The only thing that they should say publicly is “Yes, Mr. President.”
National Review contributor Mackubin Thomas Owens agrees. Speaking outside of the military chain of command is a “serious problem,” Owens says. McChrystal’s actions reflect a “widespread belief among military officers that they should be advocates of particular policies rather than simply serve in their traditional advisory role.”
Robinson’s and Owens’ comments, of course, were precipitated by General Stanley A. McChrystal’s recent public pronouncements about the deteriorating situation in Afghanistan.
“It’s better for military advice to come up through the chain of command,” counsels the National Security Adviser, General James L. Jones.
“It is imperative,” adds Defense Secretary Robert Gates, “that all of us taking part in these deliberations, civilians and military alike, provide our best advice to the president, candidly but privately [emphasis added].”
Gates never explains why it is “imperative” that American military leaders refrain from speaking publicly about Afghanistan; but his predilection for secrecy is lamentable and well documented. To decide the fate of last year’s defense budget, for instance, Gates convened a series of secret budget tribunals, while forcing senior military leaders to sign secrecy oaths.
Secretary Gates may have meant well, but his actions concerning the budget were profoundly un-American and antithetical to the spirit of American democracy, which is predicated upon democratic self-rule, or rule by the people. Secrecy, silence and censorship may make life easier for government officials; but they hinder public discussion and public debate, which are integral to wise and sound decision-making and good public policy.
The United States doesn’t suffer from too much free speech and analysis of defense issues; quite the contrary: It suffers from too much public ignorance and apathy about U.S. military requirements. For a democratic republic such as ours, which depends upon an informed and educated citizenry, this is a real problem.
That’s why it is imperative that U.S. military leaders speak publicly and often about wartime requirements and defense policy — not to advocate particular policies, which they should not do, but rather to inform and educate the public.
This is exactly what General McChrystal has done, and he should be commended for thoughtfully engaging the public dialogue. The United States, after all, prides itself on having an educated and professional military. Thus, U.S. military leaders are not mere functionaries. They are not robotic automatons who mindlessly follow orders.
U.S. military leaders follow orders, of course. But they also think, cogitate and analyze; partake in professional military forums; and write for professional military journals — and we rightly expect this of them. The professionalization and education of the United States military is one of its defining characteristics, and thank goodness for that.
That General McChrystal’s analysis may have, and surely does have, political ramifications is of no concern to him, nor should that be his concern. The general is a wartime military commander, not a politician. His job, as I explained previously in The American Spectator, is 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.”
The political questions are best left to the politicians and the pundits. But the military facts on the ground in Afghanistan, and what must be done to remedy the situation there, certainly fall within McChrystal’s purview of responsibility and expertise.
If the general’s honest assessment of the situation in Afghanistan has political ramifications, then so be it; but that is not a legitimate reason for the Secretary of Defense to try and censor McChrystal’s public pronouncements. It is, instead, a reason for the American people and their elected representatives to become more engaged in the public policy process — so that their views and their will can be heeded. In America, remember, the people rule.
About the Author
John R. Guardiano blogs at www.ResCon1.com, and you can follow him on Twitter: @ResCon1.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (96) | Leave a comment
Related Articles
More Articles by John R. Guardiano
More Articles From A Further Perspective
http://spectator.org/archives/2009/10/07/free-general-mcchrystal
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- The Great Train Robbery
- Wincing at Cumberbatch
- Her Unrequited Letter
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
H/T to National Review Online
ADVERTISEMENT
TennesseeVolunteer| 10.7.09 @ 8:08AM
The key fact of this situation that told me all I need to know is:
-the fact that the POTUS had spoken only once in 70 days to the leader that he selected.
As a manager in a variety of enterprises over the years, this tells me the amount of interest this President has in the war, the amount of attention he has given it and the amount of care he has for his troops. Actions speak louder than words. i know the President has much to do but no leader of a country in war would think that was enough face time with their military leader, particularly if the General had made a written request thirty days before that was not in agreement with the Presidents intentions.
waddyakiddin me| 10.9.09 @ 1:18AM
Yeah, this general is a real genius. Yeah, Mr. President I need 100,000 troops to go after 100 Al Queda in Afghanistan and 300 guys in Pakistan. This guy is reliable? Wasn't he in charge of the cover-up in the Pat Tillman tragedy?
JP| 10.7.09 @ 8:49AM
This is ridiculous. Military commanders going back to General McClellen have a tradition of speaking to the Press concerning military strategy and affairs. Of course, many paid the price for bucking the CIC (think of McArthur and Patton); others such as Eisenhower and Shwartzkopf were much better at the game. It's all part of wearing the 3 or 4 stars. To say that senior military commanders should be mute in the face of high level politics just doesn't work.
General McChrystal was assigned to the this position with an understanding that he would decide the military operations; traditionally the President through his service chiefs decide the broad geopolitical strategy. When President Obama fired General McKiernen last summer and hired a counterinsurgency specialist in General McChrystal, he signaled to the world that he set his geopolitical goals. The first thing General McChrystal did was conduct an overall operational study of Afghanistant, and he promised the President what his requirements would be by the end of August. Three weeks before the deadline he gave the President's National Security Advisor a heads-up on those requirements. The increase in troop levels should not have come as a surprise to anyone who understands how counter-insurgencies are conducted (Gates, Jones, Mullens all are intimately aware of the process). Either they never briefed the Presient last June on the facts of life, or the President misled everyone when he assigned McChrystal to his current post. All of a sudden the President wants to "get it right" and do "due dilgence". What has he been doing for 8 months? Now there are reports that the President doesn't necessairily wish to fight the Taliban, and he wishes to avoid totally the tribal warefare that is a way of life in Afghanistan. He now only wishes to limit operations against Al Qaida. When did he come to this decision? He certainly didn't vocie those thoughts in August when he spoke to the VFW. Press Secretary Gibbs on Tuesday promised there would be no force reduction in Afghanistan. If that's the case, why keep those levels so high as the majority of AQ is located in Pakistan or Iran?
General McChrystal smells a set up. He is obviously being set up to take the blame if things go south, while the President can take the glory if things succeed. The impression the WH has given to the public is that McChrystal is being disloyal. But McChrystal was given the authority to plan and execute operations in Afghanistan has he sees fit. Yes, the President is CIC. He could dispense with the BS and fire McChrystal and run the war from the Oval Office with David Axelrod (LBJ did as much circa 1965-1968).
This whole thing has gotten out of hand. The President now is pulling a typical PR stunt. This week has seen a flurry of top level military meetings in the WH, which are directed at the Press and public at large. The President must now give the impression that he is in control. These meetings should have been conducted 7 months ago, and from there policiy should have been set. Now that things are out of control, the President must save face. And as usual the line grunts will pay the piper.
The President actions will lead us to another Vietnam. Currently there isn't 1 commander in Afghanistan, but 101 commanders (many of them civilians) micromanaging Afghan combat operations.
Silence DoGood| 10.7.09 @ 7:41PM
very well said.
waddyakiddin me| 10.9.09 @ 1:22AM
All we need now is the "Light at the end of the tunnel" moment from the general.
Michael L. Hauschild| 10.7.09 @ 9:31AM
The only thing that matters here is what all are arguing; the military “chain of command” is tantamount in times of war. The tragic malfunction in this campaign is that the “chain of command” is not a two-way street. Battlefield commanders know best what is necessary to complete the mission, the joint chiefs of staff assess the strategy and troop levels needed and the President assesses the performance of his staff in completing the assigned mission. (A mission Obama has repeatedly invoked first to achieve office, then to curry favor, political currency and “points” with the RINO’s and Scoop Jackson Dem’s)
Obama’s problem will be that he did not change an ineffective staff; he does not have a reason or the political courage of a Truman, he instead abandoned the mission and relegated it to nothing more than a plank in the socialist party campaign platform.
Ed McAlister| 10.7.09 @ 10:16AM
The issue of Gen. McChrystal's London comments has been the subject of so much hand-wringing lately that I scarcely know where to start. Leaving aside the hypocrisy of the left (to wit: it was brave for the generals to speak out against George Bush's Iraq policies, but disloyal to speak in support of the very policy Obama claimed to have adopted in his campaign), the matter should not have come up in the first place. If anybody above the rank of imbecile believes that a four-star, combined task force commander directly subordinate to a regional combatant commander, would give a public speech that was not expressly (and exhaustively) reviewed and approved by the executive branch, they are seriously deluded. Of course Gen. McChrystal's comments were vetted at the White House level; the real question is why Obama is letting Gen. McChrystal twist in the wind.
waddyakiddin me| 10.9.09 @ 1:26AM
He wants 100,000 troops to go after 100 guys in Afghanistan and 300 guys in Pakistan. Obama needs to let the country know that. This guy led the cover-up of the Pat Tillman tragedy. Why should his judgment be trusted?
Ken (Old Texican)| 10.7.09 @ 10:53AM
Lord, I am grateful for the essayists AND commenters here.
It often reminds me of a "cad-cam" engineering program we used to engineer drilling rigs. Youall know the one, where you can spin the drawings and specs in every direction to get the good perspectives to correct and improve the final product before steel is cut.
I believe the General just did what he felt MUST be done, for our country and for his troops.
He is a honorable man.
waddyakiddin me| 10.9.09 @ 1:27AM
He headed up the cover up in the Pat Tillman tragedy. This is not an honorable man.
Jim Kenney| 10.7.09 @ 11:16AM
Gen MacArthur is a perfect example of the 'public' military man. Was his assessments in Korea corect? Absolutely YES! The problem is in our country the military works for the President not the other way around. So Truman's firing of MacArthur was not only justified but required. General McChrystal is on the edge if not over it. Our system is the way it is to keep from having a military take over. Lest you think I am a crying liberal, I am a retired Air Force officer, who did not and would not ever vote for Obama. Right or wrong if Prez Obama makes a constitutionally sound decision, the military must salute smartly and carry it out.
Etiquette Man| 10.7.09 @ 12:09PM
This is exactly right, Jim, and your analysis of both MacArthur's military brilliance and Truman's correct decision to fire him is spot on.
If a soldier is given a legal order, he is obliged to obey it. Period.
I lost count of the number of stupid orders I had to follow after my first week of basic training. When I became a Warrant Officer later in my career and had to implement the nonsensical orders of 21-year-old 2LT's, often over my privately stated objections, I learned a hard lesson in tongue-biting, but I never undermined my commander and always presented a unified front to my troops. McChrystal is not doing this, and--as much as I loathe Obama--McChrystal is wrong.
I am really surprised that people who purport to have military experience actually think that soldiers should have the right to question legal orders. This is profoundly dangerous line of thinking, and one that disturbs me greatly.
Sincerely,
EM
Serge from Wellington| 10.7.09 @ 2:57PM
If a soldier is given a legal order, he is obliged to obey it. Period.
Serge from Wellington| 10.7.09 @ 3:00PM
Sorry, I somehow dropped my comment to the above quote from EN. And it is:
What legal order has General McChrystal disobeyed?
Tim| 10.7.09 @ 11:31AM
Is the mission to protect America or to build a new Afghani utopia?
Etiquette Man| 10.7.09 @ 12:02PM
I disagree strongly, though respectfully, with the sentiments expressed by the author and several of those posting to this thread.
I am a former Army Chief Warrant Officer. I resigned my commission in part because I could no longer bear to have Clinton as my CINC. I found that I was unable to be loyal to a man for whom I had no respect, so I bit the bullet and got out.
I loathe Barack Obama, because of the deep and lasting harm this fascist is doing to our great nation. Even so, if I had undermined my commander the way the good General is undermining his commander, I would have been court-martialed, and rightly so.
If he finds it impossible to obey his commander's orders, the honorable path would be to resign his commission and to speak out as a private citizen.
As much as I hate to agree with anything from "Pravda on the Potomac" (WaPo), McChrystal does indeed either need to shut up and salute, or bite the bullet and resign.
Soldiers should have NO voice in policy decisions. The author's position that soldiers should have a voice in policy decisions is both myopic and dangerous. Celebrating this man's disregard for the chain-of-command may sound good now, and the left is certainly guilty of encouraging this sort of thing under Bush, but the point is maintaining the integrity of the military chain-of-command and affirming the civilian control of the military. The short term "gain" of watching Obama swing in the wind (which, I confess, I have enjoyed) is not worth the damage it does and the ill precedent it sets.
Sincerely,
EM
Lullaby's, Legends and Lies| 10.7.09 @ 1:59PM
CWOEM: I’ve got another explanation as to why the General might have spoke out about the Afghanistan situation that makes perfect sense to me. You see, the General spent many years of his Army career at Fort Bragg, with the 82nd. And you know what the Division does in North Carolina, don’t you? Yep!! They jump out of perfectly good airplanes, but sometimes the landings don’t go exactly as planned. So this could simply be a case of, an old concussion coming back to haunt him and nothing more (it’s just a theory of mine).
I’m sure the General always honors the Chain of Command; I have no doubt about that.
Etiquette Man| 10.7.09 @ 11:28PM
Hi LLL,
My step-father was a founding member of the 505th PIR of the 82nd in WWII. He made all four of the 82nd's combat jumps. I doubt that I would have joined the Army, had it not been for his example of patriotism and derring-do. I considered joining the 82nd, but ended up in the Engineers.
I must respectfully disagree about the General's respect for the COC, unfortunately. By definition, publicly questioning your commander's policy is insubordinate. In fact, even DISCUSSING your commander's policy is, could in certain instances be taken as a sign of insubordination.
That aside, I truly appreciated your post. Made me chuckle, even.
When I was a PV2 trainee (51B) at Fort Leonard Wood in 1985, I told one of our engineer insructors (a SSG) that I wanted to go airborne. His reply?: "When then, there must be something wrong with you, private! Why the hell would you want to jump out of a perfectly good airplane?!"
;-)
Cheers!
EM
JP| 10.7.09 @ 2:50PM
It is the sole obligation for 4 Star Theatre Commanders to "set policy", that is strategy. The President can of course set it, but that has never been done before. The President is questioning General McChrystal's operational strategy, and now has allowed everyone from VP Biden to Rahm Emanual to the entire WH political machine to take part in it. Yes, the President sets the overal geo-politcal strategy; and from there he appoints the best general he can find to execute his strategy. But once he apponts the commanding general, it is the general's perogative to execute it. The President chose a strategy in March, but now for political reasons he's gotten cold feet. Men die when that happens. And I'm sure General McChrystal is too much of a man to abandon the 60,000 troops in Afghanistan to the whims of a clueless President.
Michael L. Hauschild| 10.7.09 @ 12:55PM
I believe that McChrystal and MacArthur both knew exactly what they were doing and both were aware of the potential ramifications of placing the soldiers in their command above a dysfunctional, waffling CIC. The difference in this instance is that McChrystal's breach will be much more effective in protecting America and the military personnel under his charge WHILE influencing those involved in completing the mission he was assigned.
Court martial, hardly. My heartfelt thanks and salute, absolutely.
Sacrificing a career or any further chance of advancement may not be "ultimate" but true patriots need to be acknowledged.
Ken (Old Texican)| 10.7.09 @ 1:10PM
I am surprised by you ex military men.
The General was not ordered to shut up, to my knowledge. "Someone" leaked his best judgement on his needs. Him? I don't know.
I ask this very ...very carefully.... Can any of you picture any circumstance to stand down and refuse an order you believe unconstitutionally given?
Sadly, in any organization as large as our military, there are some butt-licks who would say "yessir and three bags more, sir".
Michael L. Hauschild| 10.7.09 @ 5:22PM
Ken (Old Texican)
Just between you and me, I'm guessing Stanley got to where he is by being a pretty smart guy. Until someone posting here comes along that outranks him I think THEY should be the ones to "Shut up and salute."
I base my opinion on the considerable military knowledge I gained having combat experience with the 124th Signal Battalion. I fought with the Fourth Infantry Division, the 1/22 Infantry, 1/5 Infantry, and the 101st Airborn. (Frankly, I just could not get along with anyone)
Sp4 Hauschild (draftee)
Gail Wynand| 10.7.09 @ 2:07PM
this is pure bs, if a General had done this under Bush he would have been lauded and praised as a "true patriot". What a load of garbage!
Ed McAlister| 10.7.09 @ 2:07PM
Do not conflate MacArthur's actions with Gen. McChrystal's comments. Again, it is beyond dispute that his comments were vetted ad nauseum by the White House; I can tell you that from having watched Alexander Haig's comments as SACEUR go through the same wringer. It is simply NOT the case that Gen. McChrystal is somehow off the reservation or that the White House didn't know what he was going to say. Not in the realm of reality. Any rational soldier (and I was one) understands the absolute necessity of civilian control over the military. What appears to have happened here is that the wet thumb brigade has decided public opinion is against winning and are hoping to create a controversy sufficient to change direction from a robust, combined campaign that includes elements of counterinsurgency and counterterrorism to a Biden-esque strategy of lobbing missiles at days-old targets. Pick and win.
John Guardiano| 10.7.09 @ 2:23PM
Etiquette Man,Thank you for sharing your thoughts about my piece. Your argument misses the mark, and for the following reasons:
1. General McChrystal never disobeyed any order. This is a figment of your imagination. In fact, he expressly carried out his orders by developing a plan to execute the president’s “new and comprehensive strategy [announced last March] for Afghanistan and Pakistan.”
2. There is no standing order requiring that military commanders be mute – and if there was, such an order would be profoundly stupid and counterproductive. The First Amendment protects military personnel just as much as it does private citizens.
3. The military should not side in public policy disputes; however, military leaders should help to inform public policy debates with good, accurate and reliable information. General McChrystal, therefore, should be commended for his public pronouncements about the situation in Afghanistan.
4. Military personnel are not obligated to mindlessly follow orders. The United States military is not the Nazi German military. We are bound by a professional code of honor that obligates us to disregard unlawful orders, and to question, when necessary, ill-advised orders. At least that’s what my drill instructors at Parris Island and Camp Lejeune always taught me. But then I’m a Marine: We’re special. We hold ourselves to a higher standard. We always have and we always will.
Your logic leads to the Nuremberg Defense: “We were only following orders, and thus cannot be held accountable for our crimes.” Your logic leads to Abu Ghraib, where a bunch of sorry-ass soldiers reversed the hard-won gains of thousands of soldiers and Marines, many of whom were killed and crippled to secure Iraq.
5. Again, General McChrystal, as I wrote in this piece, is in no way undermining the chain of command. To the contrary: he is strengthening the chain of command by helping to inform and educate the public to which the chain of command is ultimately responsible. That's because the chain of command and the public both require good, accurate and substantive information upon which to base their decisions.
6. Your personal feelings toward the current commander-in-chief or the past commander-in-chief are completely irrelevant and have no place in this discussion. Professional military men and women don’t base their decisions on personal feelings.
Instead, we respect the office, if not the man; and we honor that office with respect and candor. General McChrystal has shown the President the requisite honor and respect and, for that reason, is to be commended. He is an exemplary General.
sako shooter (eib&cib;)| 10.7.09 @ 3:01PM
John, thanks for a well thought and constructed article. "War is an extension of politics, but by other means" Clausewitz said and you cannot separate the two. General McChrystal has an obligation to the President and the American people to present the facts as he sees them in Afghanistan. That neither the President, nor the American people seem to like General McChrystal's assessment is not the General' s concern.
Thank you for this very prescient paragraph: "The United States doesn't suffer from too much free speech and analysis of defense issues; quite the contrary: It suffers from too much public ignorance and apathy about U.S. military requirements. For a democratic republic such as ours, which depends upon an informed and educated citizenry, this is a real problem. "
I was also taught at Fort Benning that it was my duty to disregard unlawful orders. Since we both were taught the same philosophy, why in the world are Marines somehow different? Are Marines the only service that disregards unlawful orders? The Marines are the finest 96 hour fighting force in the world, but then you need help. That you are special and hold yourself to a higher standard gets tiresome after serving four tours of combat. What higher standard is there than to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States"?
Etiquette Man| 10.7.09 @ 10:42PM
What unlawful order has Obama given?
There is a distinction between stupid orders and unlawful orders that seems to be absent from the current discussion.
John Guardiano| 10.7.09 @ 11:42PM
Sako Shooter,
Thanks for your note. You are absolutely right: There are great combat units within all of the military services. I learned that in Iraq, where I served with some truly superb Army and Navy personnel.
I said the Marines are special to tweak Etiquette Man (a retired Army soldier it seems) for what seems to me to be his juvenile point about following orders.
Of course we follow orders; but the idea that we do so mindlessly and without thought and reason is just plain wrong.
Unfortunately, this juvenile view of military orders reinforces a longstanding and inaccurate Leftist caricature of the U.S. military -- namely that we are robotic and unthinking automatons.
Etiquette Man thus reinforces this stereotype when he should be, I think, refuting it.
I salute you, the Army and your service. Hooah!
S/F
John
Etiquette Man| 10.7.09 @ 9:55PM
Dear Mr. Guardiano,
Thank you for your reply.
1. This point is well-taken, and I realized right after posting that I should have been more clear. The real issue is not disobedience but insubordination. Soldiers do not have the right to do what McChrystal is doing. Openly questioning either orders or policy is punishable via the UCMJ as insubordination. McChrystal is being insubordinate.
2. You write: "The First Amendment protects military personnel just as much as it does private citizens. " This is simply wrong. Soldiers' First Amendment rights are in fact curtailed, and explicitly so, by the UCMJ. Servicemembers are, e.g., prevented by policy from engaging in any political protest that would undermine the chain-of-command. Soldiers who blog from Iraq and Afghanistan are prevented from speaking out against US policy. (I have a former student, a SGT in Iraq, who faced this directly.) You are simply wrong here.
3. You write: "The military should not side in public policy disputes; however, military leaders should help to inform public policy debates with good, accurate and reliable information." This, again, is simply factual wrong. The purpose of the military is to implement policy, not make it. Generals' influencing policy is a banana republic tradition, not an American one.
4. This is an ugly, insulting Slippery Slope argument, and is unworthy of a former Marine. (I teach logic at a University overseas, and will use this one with my students.) Actually, you should direct this comment at yourself. Has Obama given McChrystal any unlawful orders? If so, he is indeed disobey, and to take action against the commander giving the unlawful order. Granted, since the complaint would be against the CINC, he would have to do so with Congress, not by making speeches that seek to manipulate the decision-making process by putting the CINC in a box.
5. You can't be serious. The chain-of-command begins with the President and ends (in the Army at least) with the squad leader. If I were a corporal complaining to all and sundry about my incompetent squad leader, I could be brought up on charges for insubordination, precisely because my complaining would be insubordinate. The only reason McChrystal will never be brought up on charges is that there's no one, except the President, with enough juice to do it. His motives may be noble, or he may be, like MacArthur, a brilliant tactician who also happens to be a primadonna. Who knows? All I can say with certainty is that he is being a poor subordinate, and that his recent conduct has been unsoldierly.
6. I mentioned my personal feelings about Obama only to stress that my objection to McChrystal's actions was based on principle, not personal interest. I agree with McChrystal's recommendations, and believe that Obama is a fool for not heeding them.
I also recognized that Obama is the CINC, and that the duty of every soldier from PV1 to GEN is indeed,with the sole exception of ILLEGAL orders, to shut up and salute. A former Marine would know that.
Final question for you, sir. If General Petraeus had attempted to make policy in Iraq by speaking out against the Bush Administration, would you defend him as you are defending McChrystal?
Cordially,
EM
John Guardiano| 10.7.09 @ 11:51PM
EM,
I am taking the time to respond to your comment because I take these issues -- the military chain of command, the role of wartime commanders vis-à-vis the commander-in-chief, the First Amendment, et al. -- quite seriously.
But with all due respect, your argument is not serious. You create ridiculous straw men, which have no basis in fact, and then triumphantly blow them down. I don’t doubt your sincerity; however, I do think you are looking at these issues too simplistically.
1. You assert, but do not demonstrate or explain in any way, that General McChrystal has been “insubordinate.” No, he hasn’t, and I challenge you to document where and when the general was insubordinate.
You complain about what General McChrystal is “doing.” Well, what is he doing that so bothers you? He’s developed a plant to execute the President’s “new and comprehensive strategy for Afghanistan and Iraq.” How is this “insubordination”?
The general also has honestly, candidly and intelligently described the situation in Afghanistan; and he has thoughtfully explained what a counterinsurgency strategy there must entail. Do you consider this, too “insubordination”?
2. Yes, the First Amendment rights of military personnel are circumscribed when they are in uniform and on duty. This is true. But this does not mean that military personnel do not enjoy First Amendment protection and First Amendment rights. They most certainly do.
This is important given that we have an educated and a professional military. I find it disturbing that you seem to be willing and eager to cast aside the First Amendment for military personnel. Free speech, free thought and free analysis have done far more to strengthen the U.S. military than they have to hurt it.
3. I never said that the military should make public policy; of course they should not. However, the military certainly should help to inform the public policy dialogue: by providing the public and our leaders with good, accurate and substantive information.
This is especially important because the military has certain insights and expertise that civilians do not have. If we want our civilian leaders to make wise and informed decisions, then we (the military) must share with them our insights and analysis.
Again, we have an educated and a professional military. This is a blessing, not a curse; it is something we should exploit and capitalize on, not shun and stymie.
4. I never suggested that the president has done anything unlawful. My point is that U.S. military personnel are not robotic automatons who mindlessly follow orders.
Your conception of the U.S. military, it seems to me, is more befitting of a Third World military than the military of the most advanced democracy on the planet. Our military men and women think, cogitate and analyze -- and we should encourage them to do so.
You maliciously distort General McChrystal’s thoughtful speech to the International Institute for Strategic Studies. He never attempted to “manipulate the decision-making process by putting the CINC in a box.” That is your spin, and it is unfounded.
The general instead gave a thoughtful and considered assessment of the situation in Afghanistan. In so doing, he helped to inform the public dialogue and debate. This is something that any good military leader – and especially a four-star general who is leading a war effort -- absolutely should be doing.
5. Comparing General McChrystal’s thoughtful speeches and public analyses of the situation in Afghanistan to a corporal who is complaining about his incompetent squad leader is a ridiculous and nonsensical comparison.
Again, the general is performing a role that is demanded of him by the American people and their elected representatives. Indeed, the American people and their elected representatives have a right to hear from the nation’s top commander on the ground. There is absolutely nothing “insubordinate” about this.
As for the corporal complaining about his incompetent squad leader, well incompetence gets people killed. I have little tolerance for incompetence, and so, too, do most Marines that I know.
Depending upon the circumstances, the corporal’s actions may or may not be considered “insubordination.” But even if the corporal's actions did constitute insubordination, if he were right about the incompetence of his squad leader, then I for one might well excuse his insubordination.
V/R
John
John Guardiano| 10.8.09 @ 12:19AM
EM,
You also ask what my response would be if “General Petraeus had attempted to make policy in Iraq by speaking out against the Bush administration.”
Again, you distort the issue by twisting the question such that it compels only one answer. Of course U.S. military personnel should not attempt to “make policy.” And of course a four-star general who is leading a war effort should not lead a campaign against the administration whose policies he is executing.
But the analogy that you make is completely specious. General McChrystal is not attempting to “make policy.” Instead, he is attempting to help inform policy. This is crucial difference, which you seem not to appreciate and understand.
Moreover, General McChrystal never “spoke out against” the Obama administration. What he has done is answer questions honestly and forthrightly. He has said that a counterterrorism-only policy in Afghanistan would likely not prove effective.
Some commentators have said that this statement puts the general at odds with the vice president, who reportedly has advocated such a policy.
This may be true; however, three points must be kept in mind: First, General McChrystal never mentioned the vice president; second, the vice president has not, to the best of my knowledge, spoken publicly about this issue; and third, the vice president does not necessarily speak for the commander-in-chief.
Thus no one really knows whether the general’s comments put him at odds with the Obama administration, since the Obama administration has yet to resolve this issue one way or the other.
Moreover, far from undermining the president, General McChrystal instead is trying mightily to implement the president’s “new, comprehensive strategy [announced last March] for Afghanistan and Pakistan.”
Here’s a better analogy. In 2003, I applauded General Shinseki for telling Congress that pacifying Iraq likely would require several hundred thousands troops. I wasn’t then sure if General Shinseki was right; however, I did believe that he had a solemn obligation to tell Congress and the American people what he really thought -- even though his position put him at odds with the Bush administration.
This is not about politics and partisanship to me; it is about honor and integrity -- military honor and military integrity. I trust and hope that it is the same for you, EM.
V/R
John
JP| 10.7.09 @ 2:44PM
"Soldiers should have NO voice in policy decisions. The author's position that soldiers should have a voice in policy decisions is both myopic and dangerous"
For 99.9% of the soldiers I agree. But you seem blissfully unaware that General McChrystal does set policy -namely the military strategy for conducting NATOs efforts in Afghanistan. That is McChrystal's sole perogative as Theatre Commander. The over-all political strategy belongs to the President. But once he appoints an over-all commander, the President must allow him to conduct the operations as he sees fit. The President has taken that perogative away.
For a retired CWO, you seem unaware of the about that stated tradition that has governed our military since its inception. Yes, the President is CIC. And by law, the President can take direct control of operations and run them from the safety of the WH (LBJ did this to some degree in Vietnam).
What you seem not to understand is that the President appointed McChrystal to his current command in order for the general to conduct the kind of operations that McChrystal specialized in (Counter-insurrgency). Now the President (probably for political reasons) has had a changed of heart. Yes, according to the UCMJ General McChrystal must obey the President. However, the General couldn't even get a teleconference with the President. With ongoing combat operations, for a President not to meet with his top theatre commander is unforgivable. The President found time to meet with David Lettermen, a group of high schoolers, and he found time to give 5 interviews on Sunday TV, but he couldn't find time to meet with General McChrystal for a 20 minute conversation. The general is at the pay grade to do what he had to do in order to get the President's attention.
Etiquette Man| 10.7.09 @ 10:11PM
I disagree with relatively little of what you wrote, but this is a notable exception: "The general is at the pay grade to do what he had to do in order to get the President's attention."
This is completely, entirely wrong. Do we live in a banana republic? Do Generals have more political sway than you or I? Generals are specialists in finding the bad guys and breaking their toys. They are not policy makers, nor should they try to be. This is the eternal danger and temptation of military power--to convert it into political power.
I agree with you that our current CINC is an ignorant, incompetent putz, but that is irrelevant. Elections have consequences.
E.g.: "However, the General couldn't even get a teleconference with the President."
True but sadly irrelevant. Obama is a bad commander, because he is a bad leader generally, and a man of low character specifically.
The chain-of-command includes many morons, but having a moron for a commander does not justify underminging the chain-of-command--not if the moron is the Moron-In-Chief.
When I was a CWO, I advised my commanders on technical matters germane to my specialty. I did so in private. I often disagreed with their decisions, but I bit my tongue, shut up, and saluted.
"But you were only a CWO; we're talking about a GENERAL!!!"
So what? The fact that a General commands thousands of troops is all the more reason to keep him on a short leash. MacArthur's blathering about how we were going to run right through Pyongyang into the mountains and over in China cost us victory in the Korean War. Generals, like privates, colonels, and sergeants major need to be sufficiently disciplined either to obey orders with which they disagree, or have the intestinal fortitude to admit that they can no longer serve the CINC and resign. I did the latter in 1999, when I couldn't stand Clinton any longer, even though it cost me a pension and a slew of benefits. McChrystal could leave tomorrow, with his pension, etc. intact.
By the way, "blissfully unaware" is an example of what is called "slanting language" in logic and rhetoric. Try avoiding such verbal kidney punches in the future.
Cordially,
EM
Etiquette Man| 10.7.09 @ 10:13PM
I was "gisting" when I wrote: "But you were only a CWO; we're talking about a GENERAL!!!"
After posting, I realized that it looked like I was quoting you, and I apologize for that. You did not write that. I did, as a way of crystallizing your thoughts on McChrystal.
L. Banks| 10.7.09 @ 4:40PM
I have read with interest the comments made by various people on military protocol. I am the daughter of a 26 year Air Force World War II vet. I am a sister of an Army officer who just returned this February from a one year tour in Iraq. I am married to a 23 year retired Air Force officer. I do believe the military must follow orders. However, I believe as a human being you must review orders you are given as to the consequences for your fellow soldiers and fellow citizens. I have also worked in the Pentagon for years and I have seen many an officer fall on his sword to follow an order only to find it was the wrong path and he took the blame for his commanding officer.
In the case of General McChrystal I also agree that everything this General (hand picked by Obama) does is vetted through everyone. This President has made it clear he runs the show and he has tied the military's hands in many cases leading to the higher rates of casualties. I believe his first duty is to his country and by advising his fellow citizens he honored that commitment. His second duty is to protect and guide the men under his command and he also honored this commitment.
This President has made it clear as he apologizes all over the world for America and cuddles up to Cuba, Russia, and other dictators; sells our allies down the drain; nationalizes the car industry and reverses contract law that has stood since this country was founded; causes financial crisis as our dollar plummets and countries rush to get rid of it; surrounds himself with socialist and communist csars and advisors - Van Jones, Valerie Jarrett, David Axelrod, Ron Bloom, Rosa Brooks, Carol Browner, Heather Higginbottom, Samantha Powers, Hilda Soldis, just to name a few and his good non-friend Bill Ayers, the former Weatherman who has now stated he wrote the book "Dreams From My Father" so much for Obama's statement of he was a casual acquaintance; his association with Reverend Wright for 20 some years so I guess you can see where he stands. After all was it not Obama who said look at the people I associate with and you will know what I am about?
Frankt| 10.7.09 @ 6:07PM
Our men on the ground in Afghanistan are calling 9-1-1 and Barak Obama is turning off the ringer at the White House. Great commander in-chief we have our guys are dying and he needs to get seek advise.
When the public calls 9-1-1 the police don't sit around pick and choosing what calls to respond to.
So wakeup Barak our men need our help give the General what he needs. Saying no is saying no to America's defense.
It's a war there is no time to think you have to react forthwith. You have mens lives in your hand people are dying while you sit on your hands Obama.
Austin Olive| 10.7.09 @ 7:10PM
Good article. One beef: these United States do not form a "constitutional democracy." This Union is a Federal Republic. Big difference. Our form of government was never, ever intended to be a democracy. Not ever. It is a REPUBLIC, and one composed of 50 separate, sovereign, & independent states, voluntarily united through a compact styled "The Constitution of the United States."
Richard Baker| 10.7.09 @ 7:31PM
Olive: Succinct description of the US.
Noted GEN McChrystal's military credentials and the Kenyan couldn't carry his jock. The General has the obligation to properly advise but does not lose his ability to speak just because he's in uniform. Besides, didn't the liberals tell us during W's administration that dissent was the highest form of patriotism?
Liberal Reader| 10.7.09 @ 7:55PM
While we have -- since Viet Nam -- been more tolerant of brass speaking out of school, there is a REASON why this sort of thing needs to be kept in check. Civilian control of the military is essential to our democracy.
Richard Baker --
"The Kenyan" is the ELECTED Commander in Chief of the armed forces.
(Are you as fucking stupid as you sound?)
Dissent IS patriotic, but soldiers occupy a special place in our society and are not governed by the same rules.
Is there any chance you're playing dumb, or do you really need this explained to you?
L. Banks| 10.8.09 @ 8:16AM
Liberal Reader:
There is no argument that Obama is the elected Commander in Chief. However, officers of this country swear an allegiance 1st and foremost "to protect and defend the constitution of the United States"and then to obey all "lawful" orders of their superiors. They do not and I repeat do not swear to support a particular human being regardless of his being commander in chief or not. He may be elected to this position, but he has never served in the miliary and does not know anything about military tactics. The wisest thing he could do is listen to his Generals which he is not doing. The wisest thing he could do is to untie their hands and give them what they need to do their job. However, this man is not very wise for he would rather promote himself and his causes than listen to others - a major flaw and one that will doom him to failure. The problem is he may also pull all of us down with him.
RW Exterminator| 10.7.09 @ 8:32PM
I see that the Insulter-in-Chief is back and hasn't left her filthy mouth at home. Why is it that the American Spectator allows this? Unless they actually like it?
Todd | 10.7.09 @ 8:33PM
LR proves again what scum he is by polluting this site with his foul language. What the hell do you know about the military jerk? Obviously you follow the line from that idiot Eugene Robinson from the Wapo that he should just shut up and let Afghanistan fail because like him, you don't have an ounce of true patriotism in you. You useless liberal idiots talking about how patriotic your dissent is while declaring the Iraq War was lost and we should run out with our tails up in disgrace (think of that prick Harry Reid) but fortunately we had a president who had the guts to support General Patraeus in kicking the asses of those diseased human scumbags.
Obama is a coward like all you weak-kneed liberals, he is trying to vote present while soldiers are dying and I can only imagine the disgust the average soldier has for his sorry butt. Good thing we have a courageous General in McChrystal who is standing up for them in getting them the support they will need. I dare Obama to fire him but he won't because he is too much of a coward to do so because Afghanistan will solely be put on him if he was to do so. Obama thought he could continue to ignore the situation while attempting to force nationalized healthcare down our throats but McChrystal would have none of it because he is a man of honor unlike Hussein.
As another example of what a wussy BO is, he refused to meet with the Dalai Lama because the tyrants in China wouldn't approve. Add it to the long list of his kissing ass of dictators worldwide, what a pathetic clown.
Bydand76| 10.7.09 @ 8:40PM
Liberal Reader?
"Civilian control of the military is essential to our democracy"
One, we are a republic not a democracy. Two, no one is saying civilian control is not neccesary or required. Especially the military.
"Dissent IS patriotic, but soldiers occupy a special place in our society and are not governed by the same rules."
Ummm ..Yes we are! We have the same rules that you live by and then some more called the Uniform Code of Military Justice. The UCMJ. Furthermore, all members of the Armed Forces are obligated to voice their dissent if it involves their soldiers lives. Mission First, Soldiers Always!
Soldiers live their military careers by a set of values and it guides them in all of their decisions both publicly and within their prospective military role and the military culture.
Gen McChrystal did and said NOTHING outside of those values or OUTSIDE of his mission that he has been ordered to complete.
Simply put, General McChrystal is well within his rights as a citizen of the United States and a member of America' warrior class to state his proffesional educated opinion on the subject regardless.
but it gets worse with you
"we have been more tolerant of brass speaking out of school"
Is this a generalization (no pun intended) of American society or a personal opinion?
This statement in of itself reeks of Stalinist Communist tendencies. Who are you to speak such nonsense? I am assuming that you would have a bunch of brain-dead "sycophants" who nod their collective heads yes and start pushing buttons? Am I right or no?
But you make it worse by following it up with this statement and I quote:
"there is a REASON why this sort of thing needs to be kept in check"
Are you serious? What are we going to do? Line up the firing squads? Start a purge? How do you propose that we keep things in check?
Respectfully, Are you as stupid as YOU sound?
Nevermind, don't bother. I already know the answer. Jackass!
nick| 10.7.09 @ 9:04PM
Lib-non-reader:
1. You prove that you are not well read. Apply your "analysis" Vietnam. Would you prefer that the Generals of today follow what happened back then?
2. You clearly have no military experience and only parrot the leftist line in this area - why show your ignorance?
3. Yep this is the small nick back to show that you are not a reader of anything of value other than what supports your leftists preconcpetions.
J.C.Eaton| 10.7.09 @ 9:43PM
Liberal Reader, much as it galls me to address you personally, you are a shameful and shameless fraud. Every time you have one of your petulant little uncontrolled emotional episodes, you give us the same tired, vapid sayonara and promise never to return. You never keep your word. nor do you ever offer anything but faux sagacity. You combine your fraud with the banal and ugly crudity you demonstrated here again. You have the polemical skill and the temperment of an unpaid, two-dollar whore. If this site were to run into you at the church social, no one here would want
to talk with you, much less buy you a cup of coffee. Do us a favor:keep your lousy word, give us a break, be a sport...go crap in someone else's Easter basket. Thanks.
Etiquette Man| 10.7.09 @ 10:30PM
Dear All,
I don't post that often, but when I do it's usually to play "Spank-a-RINO" with Quin Hilyer. My biggest problem with TAS is that it's not right-wing enough. If I were a pilot, my plane would never get off the ground because I would remove the left wing (rimshot, please). Etc. Etc. You get the idea. . . .
I am a former Army Chief Warrant Officer with 15 years of service. I resigned my commission in 1999 due to my disgust with how Clinton had abandoned and betrayed my brothers and sisters in arms.
AFTER I resigned, I sent emails to everyone I knew--including many soldiers--explaining my reasons for resigning and protesting as loudly and strongly as I knew how. I continued to do so until Clinton left office.
As a lowly CWO, my protest had little effect outside of my immediate sphere of influence. Conversely, McChrystal's sphere of influence is the entire world. If his true interest is in influencing policy, he can do that, without violating the UCMJ (as he is now doing), by resigning. He'd keep his benefits and pensions, and would no longer be constrained by the UCMJ. He could speak his mind freely, as a private citizen. I lost all of benefits when I resigned, because I was short of my twenty, but I still resigned, rather than become an insubordinate subordinate.
I am truly baffled by those military folks on this list who do not see the danger of backing McCrystal's MacArthuresque power play. Yes, Obama is a putz. I can't stand him. But that's not the point. If we're to remain a constitutional republic, the office of the President and its powers must be respected even when the occupant is an anti-American nutjob.
Generals advise on policy, but the only place where they MAKE policy is a banana republic.
I have a serious, and respectfully submitted, question to any and all.
If General Petraeus had tried to influence the policy of the Bush Administration in Iraq by publicly protesting said policy, would you have supported him?
It's a serious question, and I'll be interested to see the responses.
Cordially,
EM
Lullaby's, Legends and Lies| 10.8.09 @ 6:37AM
EM: Ha, ha!! I’m still laughing about the left wing line you wrote, very funny!! I never heard that one before!! It reminds me of something I said to my folks last year after the Presidential Election. I was visiting them in Florida, and I told them I had car problems on the way there. My Mom said “Really, what happened?”. So I told her, “I don’t know, but when I crossed the Stateline into Florida, my car just started pulling hard to the left”. She just looked at me with a weird look, obviously not getting the joke, but I was laughing (and I still think it’s funny). So I finally explained myself to her, that there was nothing wrong with my car, but I was just trying to be funny, but you know how it is, if you’ve got to explain you jokes, they’re not funny anymore!!
I’m not going to get into the serious debate that’s going on here, because sometimes I like to keep my opinions to myself. The old shut up and salute policy if you will. Although I keep coming back to see how the battle’s going on, and it’s going. But I have a thought on it, maybe the General in this case, decided to skip the plausible deniability scenario, like other Generals have done in the past, and decided his case needed to be brought to light, in a more public forum . So instead of proceeding like others have in the past, secretly twisting arms in the halls of the Department of Defense to get their way, he decided to make it more of a public debate this time. Maybe he didn’t think he had the time to waste doing it the old fashioned way.
But is it right or wrong? I don’t know, I’d just shut up and salute myself!!
Todd| 10.7.09 @ 10:55PM
EM,
How are you missing the point that is rather clear to my mind? How is the General "making" policy? He is calling out the fact that he is not be given the support he needs for the policy that he was hired for. I am sure he will resign if it is refused to him but he clearly is not be given an answer and has been brushed off by Obama because he is to busy trying to destroy our health care system.
In my opinion (I have never been in the military), his reason for doing so is to protect his soldiers and give the counterinsurgency a chance to succeed in Afghanistan by not allowing Obama to vote present anymore. Either support him right now to do what he was hired to do or I will resign and it will be on Obama. I suspect Obama will end up sending more troops even if he really does not want to because he is a coward at heart and doesn't want to have to take the blame for failure and for lying about his support for Afghanistan previously.
Etiquette Man| 10.7.09 @ 11:11PM
Dear Todd,
A fair point. Allow me to clarify. The General is not making policy. He is TRYING to make policy by publicly embarrassing the WH and putting his commander, Obama, in a box. Generals should not do that. No soldier should. By attempting to influence policy via a political manuever, the General has stepped over a very significant Constitutional line.
Soldiers in positions of authority within the military may be called up on to advise the President, in private. Once the President makes the decision (or, in the case of the hapless BHO, delay it), the General's job is indeed to shut up and salute.
I entirely understand the frustration that the General must feel, as I understand the frustration expressed by so many on this list. That said, the President remains the CINC, even if he is an incompetent boob. We have an anti-American ignoramus for CINC, but he remains the CINC. The only soldierly form of protest is a refusal to serve. Should the General resign, and then publicly protest the administrations Afghanistan policy, he would get the policy he wants--very quickly. He just wouldn't be the one implementing it.
The real issue, as I have written in several posts, above, is the overriding imperative to maintain the integrity of the chain-of-command. When there is a posturing poseur at the top of it, it is quite tempting to say, "To hell with it!", and speak out. I've been there, done that, got the T-shirt (albeit only at the battalion level, not at the "echelons above reality" plane in which the General soars).
If I were in the General's shoes, I'd want to put the man-child on notice, too; but when you're a soldier, and the man-child is your commander the ONLY possible responses to LAWFUL but stupid orders are:
1. Shut up and salute.
2. Resign and THEN speak out.
No soldier has the right to question the policy of the CINC while wearing the uniform.
We on the right pitched a fit about how the left was encouraging dissent in the ranks when Dubya was President, and rightly so.
We need to be consistent, even when it hurts, and support the principle that soldiers do not undermine the CINC by publicly questioning him. If we are to continue the remarkable feat of remaining a free country with a large standing Army, we need to suck it up, accept that the One, the Most Merciful, the Dear Leader is indeed the CINC of the US Armed Forces, and not encourage insubordination in the ranks, especially from senior generals.
Freedom and large standing army only go together when Generals "shut up and salute" in response to every lawful order, no matter how stupid, and never speak out publicly against any commander, especially the Commander-in-Chief.
Cordially,
EM
Todd| 10.7.09 @ 11:34PM
EM,
I understand where you are coming from better though it seems to me there is a variance of opinions on the role of generals from military men here. I would like to make a fuller response but its late and I am tired so maybe tomorrow. I don't see the insubordination myself though I can see why BO and the White House are upset for being called out for their irresponsibility on the matter. Certainly this bears no resemblance to MacArthur in Korea who was clearly insubordinate and stepped way over the line though he clearly had strong points.
Etiquette Man| 10.7.09 @ 11:52PM
Hi Todd,
The insubordination is textbook. I am genuinely puzzled that no one here seems to see it, even former military SM's.
Officers are expected, among other things, to present a unified front to the troops. Not actively disobeying order may be good enough for privates and lower-level sergeants, but even a platoon sergeant (usually an SSG or SFC) would be called on the carpet undermining his commander in the way that the General is undermining Obama.
Thus, Pravda on the Potomac (the WaPo) was quite right in telling the General to "shut up and salute." (I can't tell you how much it pains me to agree with them, but sometimes even a blind hog finds an acorn . . .)
If I had done this as an officer, I would have received, at a minimum, an Article 15 (non-judicial punishment) and might have been subject to an Article 32 Hearing (for possible court-martial). It just isn't done.
(To provide some background, I was once made the subject of an official investigation for reporting for temporary duty without official orders, but WITH the verbal authorization of my unit. The specific charge?: That I had broken the chain-of-command, by sending myself to a new duty station without official authorization. I was cleared, but it was an ordeal, and even if I HAD done what I was accused of (which I didn't), it was penny-ante compared to calling out the CINC in public.
The military takes this stuff quite seriously, and rightly so. As much as I resented being made the subject of an investigation for doing my duty, I understood the need to make sure that officers don't go rogue. The fact that I was cleared showed me that the system works, if it is given a chance to. Even in my darkest hours, I never once mouthed off publicly, and I continued to follow the orders of those above me, with enthusiasm and professionalism, even when those orders came from those who were putting me through the wringer.
I would also challenge any person of the right who disagrees with me on this to answer my previously stated question:
If General Petraeus had tried to influence the policy of the Bush Administration in Iraq by publicly protesting said policy, would you have supported him?
It's a serious question, and I'll be interested to see the responses.
Thanks for the reply, Todd.
Cordially,
EM
Etiquette Man| 10.8.09 @ 1:01AM
Hello again Todd,
Further point of clarification. All soldiers, especially leaders, are expected to follow not just their commander's orders, but also what is called "Commander's Intent." Call it the "strict constructionist" version of military "followership." (Even more valuable than the leadership skills I acquired as a private, sergeant, and then warrant officer was the ability to follow. It's a LOT harder than most people think, as the current case indicates).
Put simply, the doctrine of "Commander's Intent" teaches that simply following orders is not sufficient. One must also implement the spirit of orders given. When orders are absent (as in the case of the sad-sack CINC Obama), one follows the last order given, and does one's best to implement not merely the letter of the order, but the Commander's Intent behind it (even if the commander and his intent are both idiotic--I had to do that more times than I can recall, as did EVERY other good officer and NCO I knew).
THIS is where the General is failing. Thus, I contend that the General, though correct tactically, is behaving in an insubordinate and unsoldierly manner. The fact that the current CINC is indeed an anti-American, anti-military boob is (sadly) irrelevant.
Cordially,
EM
Etiquette Man| 10.8.09 @ 1:17AM
Mr. Guardiano:
If General Petraeus had tried to influence the policy of the Bush Administration in Iraq by publicly protesting said policy, would you have supported him?
I look forward to reading your response, if any.
Cordially,
EM
Michael L. Hauschild| 10.8.09 @ 7:11AM
EM,
Do you read what you write or are you some “stream of thought moron?” Everything said here, in both the article and the outstanding posts, has been about doing what is best for the country and our service personnel. Everyone here has been very patient with you most have been civil and articulate; amazingly enough the most eloquent has been Todd the non- military poster.
The fact that you have distilled this topic down to how, given similar circumstances, Guadiano would respond to Bush as opposed to Obama tells (at least) me that you just another partisan and as you allude, “disgruntled” about something with your military history.
It is to the troll stockade for you troop: the charge is “becoming a meaningless repetitive noise” and the punishment is the scroll button.
Etiquette Man| 10.8.09 @ 7:58AM
Dear Michael,
I truly have no idea why you think I am a disgruntled former soldier. Nothing could be farther from the truth. That truly baffled me. I love my country, and am proud of my service. I love seeing green-suiters in airports. If I am fortunate enough to sit next to one on the plane, they get an earful about how much their service is appreciated and how they should tune out the nattering nabobs of negativism on MSNBC and the rest of the red media.
Although I regret that you chose to do so, I also do not know why you have chosen to implement Rule #13 from Alinsky's Rules of Power Tactics: "Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it and polarize it." Perhaps I confused the matter by bringing my personal experience into the question. If so, please disregard that and accept my apology. It's not about me. My own experience is at best tangentially relevant to the case at hand. Kindly consider it erased from the discussion.
With that out of the way, if we can get back to substance, since you don't seem likely to comment on my question to the author of the article (and the thread at large), I will try to make my case more succinctly, which will I hope meet with your approval.
I will present it in the form of a concise, inductive argument.
Premise 1: The integrity of the military Chain-of-Command is imperative to maintaining effective control of the Armed Forces.
Premise 2: Having the President as the Commander-in-Chief of US Armed Forces is imperative to maintaining civilian control of the Armed Forces.
Premise 3: General McChrystal's recent public comments questioning the current President's military policies in Afghanistan are not conducive to maintaining the integrity of the Chain-of-Command.
Premise 4: General McChrystal's recent public comments questioning the current President's military policies in Afghanistan undermine the authority of the office of the President as CINC.
Therefore, General McChrystal should cease his public criticism of the current President's policies in Afghanistan.
In the interest of being helpful, allow me to point out that there are two ways in which you can attack this argument.
First, you may challenge the truth of any or all of the premises.
Second, you may challenge the relevance of the premises to the conclusion. That is, you may claim that, even if the premises are true, the conclusion is still likely to be false.
I hope that you will suspend your misguided belief that I am a troll long enough to give my argument the thorough thrashing you doubtless believe it merits.
If you are unwilling to engage in a constructive, respectful discussion, then I will leave it to those reading the thread to draw their own conclusions as to who is the troll. I have been nothing but respectful and polite to everyone on this thread, even in disagreement, and even to you.
I have tried to mend the apparent error of my ways by being more succinct and clear. I have made a brief, clear argument. Have you a reply? Or will we all be treated to another round of Alinksy?
Sincerely,
EM
Mary Louise| 10.8.09 @ 7:21AM
If General Petraeus had tried to influence the policy of the Bush Administration in Iraq by publicly protesting said policy, would you have supported him?
Yes.
If Patreaus would have said, without saying, look Rumsfeld is goinng to get a lot of us killed here because he's an intransigent man who is convinced he can accomplish what he can't.
Though, you've made your case here, ET. I'm inclined to your view now because you've painted the big picture for us very well.
Etiquette Man| 10.8.09 @ 8:06AM
Hi Mary Louise,
Thanks for the reply. I truly appreciate it.
We on the right screamed about the left's incitement of even junior enlisted members against Bush's policies, and rightly so. They were wrong. McChrystal may indeed be a great General and a great Patriot. People of good will may disagree, and I've made the best case I can. I was very pleased that you think I painted the big picture well.
Your answer also illustrates the point of the question, for which I thank you again. It would indeed have been possible to make a strong case against Bush's policies at virtually any point from 2004-2006, on much the same lines as those who are supporting McChrystal's public questioning of his commander. It ticks me off as much as anyone on this list that Obama is the top guy, but as great as the stakes admittedly are, it's not worth jeopardizing the critical principles of civilian control of the military and the critical need to keep the chain-of-command intact from top to bottom.
Thanks again for the thoughtful comment.
Cordially,
EM
Retired Guy| 10.8.09 @ 2:09PM
EM, you have eloquently laid out the reasons McChrystal is insubordinate in the way he is handling Obama's inaction on Afghanistan. However, to the right-wing zombie, this is what they see:
Blah blah blah McChrystal bad blah blah blah I love Obama blah blah blah I hate the military blah blah blah.
Believe me, I have posted numerous times on numerous blogs on military issues. Like you I posted from MY experience (21 years in communications/15 years as a leader of men) but if one of my posts was the least bit critical all I got was Rule #13, like you said.
You are correct though. Publicly calling out your boss, even if that boss is a complete and utter moron, is a no-no. Case in point: One of my last assignments before I retired I was in charge of a large network maintenance shop. My boss had been previously fired from two different positions for incompetence (and would soon be fired from this one for abuse of authority), but as happens with incompetence in the military she was just moved from unit to unit. Anyway she would make the most asinine decisions but the best I could do was vent to my first sgt about it. Going to my customers and saying, "You know, we could fix your issue if Capt X would just allocate the funds so we could purchase what we need" would have been insubordinate of me, much as Gen McChrystal (right though he may be) is being insubordinate.
Anyway, one thing the back and forth HAS cemented in my mind is that many who call themselves "conservatives" are nothing more than hypocrites. They cried when a peon E4 called out Bush but don't see the danger in an O-10 calling out the CINC.
Telling that none of them besides a woman even tried to answer your question though. Real "men," those "conservatives" are.
John Guardiano| 10.8.09 @ 9:39AM
Etiquette Man,
I’ve addressed your points further up in this exchange. (You may have missed my responses because they are in direct response to your original post and, as such do not appear as the last or latest exchange.)
But to sum up: You address serious issues and in a seemingly cogent way; however, you do so most unfairly. That’s because you create ridiculous straw men and then triumphantly blow them down.
Indeed, if General McChrystal were responsible for all of the things that you charge him with doing – disobeying an order, insubordination, undermining the chain of command, trying to create public policy, et al. – then I of course would agree with you. But the general has done no such thing; and he is not trying to do any such thing.
You have, I think, an overly simplistic view of things and fail to appreciate the importance of an educated and professional military which thinks, cogitates and analyzes. That’s why I am far more willing than you are to countenance and even encourage free and independent thinking by our military leaders and military personnel.
Your attitude and perspective, I think, are more appropriate for a less sophisticated and less capable Third World military than the United States military. The U.S. military prides itself on its professionalization and sophistication. Consequently, we welcome (or at least should welcome) free and independent though, which has always been one of our key “asymmetric” advantages.
V/R
John
Retired Guy| 10.8.09 @ 2:20PM
"The U.S. military prides itself on its professionalization and sophistication. Consequently, we welcome (or at least should welcome) free and independent thought"
Umm, I may be going out on a limb here, but I'm guessing you never served. This quote made me LOL!!!!!
Todd| 10.8.09 @ 10:14AM
I think John has hit the nail on the head, General McChrystal is certainly not guilty of insubordination, has not undermined the chain of command or try to create public policy. He had a duty to his soldiers that have been neglected by our traitor-in-chief. Just check out the Drudge Report today to see the toll Obama's clear neglect has taken on our fighting soldiers.
I believe your intentions are good EM but your argument about the need of civilian control over the military is overwrought in this instance and it is a shame that you really believe General McChrystal should just shut up and let soldiers die while he sits on his hands and waits for Obama to keep his word. Did not Nazi Germany have civilian control over the military and Generals that would just shut up and do what they were told? I am glad to know we have outstanding Generals like McChrystal who are willing to put their career's on the line to do what is right for the country and our fighting soldiers. If Obama doesn't like it or be willing to keep his word, he is free to fire him and I do not believe for a second that the General has done anything wrong. He is a hero in my book.
Retired Guy| 10.8.09 @ 2:19PM
Todd, believe me, the general is NOT putting his career on the line. The pension and benefits package he gets when he decides to retire is worth more than probably 75% of the average American's yearly salary.
I think the problem with Americans is we have this attitude of "it can't happen here." I did not go to drudge yet but I fear that the story you reference is about average soldiers who are frustrated with Obama. The scary thing here is that although I will be called crazy or whatever, do you see how this could be not only the general being insubordinate, but what if it gets to the point where soldiers are forced to make a decision between the general and the CINC? Do you not see how that might present our country with, oh, a wee little problem? IS the general taking advantage of a situation where he knows the average soldier is frustrated with Obama, didn't vote for Obama, and maybe the general has more lofty goals in mind? A coup? No, that could NEVER happen in America, right? Just like GM and Chrysler would never be taken over by the govt either, huh?
There is an ignorance in America and the average military member is not immune. The Constitution has been ignored for WAAAAAAAY too long and lately it seems folks believe they need to be loyal to a PERSON and not the CONSTITUTION like their oath states. So, is the general forcing soldiers to make a decision, be loyal to me or loyal to the CINC? That could never happen in AMERICA, could it? Naaaaaaah.
Ken (Old Texican)| 10.8.09 @ 10:46AM
Warrant officers are usually specialists of some sort.
They have NO chain of command responsibilities like Line Officers.
I can appreciate EM's perspective. I think he did an honorable thing with resigning.
As someone above pointed out, Obama can fire or court-martial the General any time he wants to.
End of story.
Mary Louise| 10.8.09 @ 1:09PM
Hi EM,
You’ve laid out the big picture perfectly. You know what I thought of when reading your posts? The Scripture that advises the Apostles not to worry about what they’re going to say under questioning because the Holy Spirit will provide.
The Truth is very hard to deny. You can do it, but the grease is easy to see. No slight to Mr. Guardiano meant in the least here. His piece was very good too. And I couldn’t help but link his last name to General McChrystal’s duties.
Your posts made me wonder if, regardless of good intent, shielding a CIC from the consequences of his stupidity might likely be more harmful than remedy. If it postpones a needed destruction in order to rebalance, by layering competence with incompetence, and obscuring the clarity that would force naked stupidity to retreat.
I always read your posts because they’re very intelligent and interesting.
I have no choice but to leave the welfare of our Troops in the hands of Generals and other officers. But as a boost to the troops of lesser and despised generals, I think a tune is in order. One that reminds us that there ain’t no easy way out.
All the best, EM.
Richard Baker| 10.8.09 @ 8:04PM
Liberal Reader:
You obviously never served or knew any General officers. The Kenyan may be elected but he is not a dictator. The General swore to defend the Constitution. He did not take an oath of fealty to the Kenyan as the Wehrmacht did to Adolf Hitler. Until the Kenyan gives him a direct order, GEN McChrystal is able to agree or disagree in public at his convenience. Armchair soldiers, such as yourself, probably wouldn't know that.
Richard Baker| 10.8.09 @ 8:06PM
Silence Dogood:
Been sometime since we've heard from you. How is Dr. Franklin these days?
Pingback| 3.24.10 @ 11:17AM
COLLECTION-21: How Many Israeli Politicians Are Behind Mrs. Said’s Spanish WEDO & Its links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 3.28.10 @ 7:38AM
Obama-Administration Embraces the European View. Israeli-Palestinian Conflict Is the links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
www.us-bapeoutlet.com | 4.3.10 @ 10:39PM
www.us-bapeoutlet.com
Poptropica | 4.8.10 @ 11:31PM
I’ll have a Poptropica full written walkthrough very soon, but in the meantime, here are some answers to some of the frequently asked questions about Mythology Island. Having trouble? Post a question in the comments and I’ll try to answer it!
Getting Hercules to Help You
Hercules won’t help you until you have all five items from Zeus’ quest. Once you have the five items, bring them to Athena. Zeus will appear and steal them. The big jerk! Once this happens, talk to Athena and she will tell you that Hercules will help you. You’ll need to have the magic mirror from Aphrodite because Hercules doesn’t want to have to walk. He’s so lazy!
Getting the Hydra Scale
You can see how to do this in the videos, but basically you need to jump up when the Hydra is about to strike. He will rear one of his heads back to attack and his eyes will bulge out. When this happens, jump up in the air and then try to land on top of his head. That head will get knocked out. When all five heads get knocked out, the Hydra will be asleep and you can click on him to get one of the scales. Poptropica I’ll have a full written walkthrough very soon, but in the meantime, here are some answers to some of the frequently asked questions about Mythology Island. Having trouble? Post a question in the comments and I’ll try to answer it!
Getting Hercules to Help You
Gentech | 6.26.11 @ 10:33PM
When you are lost due to business problems, don’t just sit down and do nothing. Come to us “Gentech”. We are an expert in both business processes and industrial matters. Gentech provides the best comment and the best solution to get through problems. Open your mind and let’s Gentech think for you.
Cheap Flight to Bangkok | 6.26.11 @ 10:33PM
Do not have a hard time searching for the cheap flight to Bangkok anymore because the cheap flight to Bangkok is already provided here and now. Join our cheap flight to Bangkok and have fun in the charismatic city, enjoy the sun, and shower yourself with amazement. Remember Bangkok is not far away as you think.
Game | 6.26.11 @ 10:34PM
Nowadays a game does not limit only for kids. However, a game becomes one of family activities, which is able to gather family members and give some pleasure to all of them. In another word, a game help strengthen the family bond. In the same time, kids gain creative ideas with the aid from their parents. Let’s find some brilliant game for your kids and your family.
Wii | 6.26.11 @ 10:34PM
No lonely gaming anymore. With Wii, to have a dazzling experience with your family is a piece of cake. Select Wii! Add Wii as one of your family members for happiness of your kids and for happiness of yourself.
IBCBET | 8.1.11 @ 12:49AM
This is exactly what General McChrystal has done, and he should be commended for thoughtfully engaging the public dialogue. The United States, after all, prides itself on having an educated and professional military. ibcbet-th IBCBET ibcbet online