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.
U.S. military leaders absolutely must work within the chain of
command; however, the chain of command is a two-way street. It
runs up to the commander-in-chief, President Barrack Obama; and
it runs down to the young sergeants and corporals who are risking
their lives in Helmet Province.
General McChrystal is accountable to both. He is accountable to
his civilian overseers and he is equally accountable to the
courageous young men and women under his command. Indeed,
McChrystal’s recent public pronouncements are about keeping faith
with his young charges.
As far as loyalty up the chain of command is concerned, a
four-star general like McChrystal does not undermine the chain of
command when he engages the public dialogue. Quite the contrary:
he strengthens the chain of command when he informs and educates
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.
The United States, remember, is a constitutional democracy. The
American people do not serve the military; the military serves
the American people. That’s why public dialogue and public
discussion about military matters are so crucially important:
because they empower the American people who are the ultimate
decision-makers and the ultimate source of power in our republic.
Some analysts like the Brooking Institution’s
Michael O’Hanlon agree that McChrystal’s
public pronouncements have been “well with bounds,” but fault the
general for being insufficiently “nuanced” and too “blunt and
impolitic.”
Oh, please. We’re talking about a wartime general, not a
blowhard, blow-dried politician. If oh-so-sensitive, politically
correct etiquette must govern our military leaders, then America
will deprive itself of some truly great military talent.
Rough-hewn Generals Andrew Jackson, George S. Patton, and Walton
“Johnnie” Walker, for instance, all would have failed the PC
test. If McChrystal’s candor rubs some bureaucrats in the White
House and in the Pentagon the wrong way, then too bad. These
bureaucrats should grow up, be adults, and get a thicker skin.
General McChrystal’s words and conduct have been exemplary and in
accordance with the highest standards of military bearing and
professionalism.
A more serious but still misplaced concern involves the leak (to
the Washington Post’s esteemed
Bob Woodward) of McChrystal’s
confidential Afghan
assessment. Some critics argue that leaks
are illegal (or at least unauthorized) and that they compromise
national security.
Some leaks are unauthorized and some leaks do compromise national
security, but not all leaks and not this leak.
Leaks of ongoing intelligence operations, and leaks of tactical
troop movements, for instance, certainly jeopardize our troops
and their missions. But in an act of patriotic grace, Woodward
and the Post redacted from McChrystal’s assessment
information that Obama administration officials said might
jeopardize future U.S. military operations.
Moreover, the leaked Afghan assessment addresses the overarching
strategic issue of America’s overall policy in Afghanistan in
light of the deteriorating situation there. This overarching
strategic issue is rightfully and necessarily a matter of public
concern.
Indeed, in the American system of government, the President and
the Congress, acting on behalf of the American people, set the
overall strategy or policy, and the military executes that policy
in all of its myriad details.
For these reasons, Secretary Gates’ attempt to censor McChrystal
is seriously mistaken. U.S. military leaders already are far too
reticent to speak publicly about military matters. The Defense
Secretary’s mild but unmistakable admonishment that they speak
just privately and with the President only will exacerbate this
long-standing problem.
More than a decade ago the distinguished social scientist and
United States Senator, Daniel Patrick Moynihan (D-NY), lamented
the institutionalization of a vast culture of governmental
secrecy, which, he said, needlessly and counterproductively
restricts the American people’s access to information.
“But secrecy,” the Senator observed,
“need not remain the only norm. We must develop,” he said, “a
competing culture of openness, fully consistent with our
interests in protecting national security, but in which power is
no longer derived primarily from one’s ability to withhold
information.”
Senator Moynihan was right then, and his words ring true today.
The United States needs a culture of openness in which our
military leaders are not punished for sharing information with
the American people.
A military leader’s position ought not be secure simply because
he refrains from public communication. To the contrary: military
leaders ought to be rewarded and promoted in part
because of their willingness and ability to
smartly engage the public dialogue. The well-being of our
democracy requires that. Let it be, and bring it on.
