One of the most famous instances of the often fragile balancing act between military and political figures occurred during the administration of President Harry Truman, who in the midst of the Korean War dispatched Gen. Douglas MacArthur. While always fraught with tension – especially during war time – respect for the civilian chain-of-command by soldiers is time-honored, and integral to a functioning, healthy democracy.
Which is why President Obama’s decision to relieve General Stanley McChrystal, quoted along with his inner circle in Rolling Stone magazine speaking in disparaging terms of civilian superiors and colleagues, was the correct course of action. The general’s choice of publication by which he chose to air his grievances was curious to say the least: Rolling Stone has a well-established liberal bias, and its coverage has often been more favorable than not to President Obama.
But regardless of what one makes of the president’s leadership, this firestorm is indicative of how egregiously military-civilian norms were violated by Gen. McChrystal’s remarks.
In declaring McChrystal’s conduct not of “the standards that should be set by a commanding general,” the president was within his right to oust an officer whose authority and relationship with his civilian superiors had been badly compromised. The incident undermined one of the most fundamental traditions of the military – deference to its political decision-makers.
WATCH OBAMA’S REMARKS ON McCHRYSTAL HERE:
Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
While observers can be encouraged that Gen. David Petraeus – a well-regarded soldier-statesman and the architect of the Iraq Surge strategy – will be taking the helm of the troubled Afghanistan campaign, McChrystal’s firing was an unfortunate coda to an otherwise distinguished career.
The actions by the general and those surrounding him were also a violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). Article 88 of the UCMJ clearly bars officers from making publicly contemptuous remarks against civilian authorities. And much as it was bad form for active-duty officers to criticize the Iraq war conduct during the tenure of former president George W. Bush, so was it equally ill-advised for the famously outspoken McChrystal to undermine his Commander-in-Chief in the media. It accomplished nothing other than poisoning his rapport with one of the most important people within his chain-of-command.
As experts have noted, at the heart of the McChrystal imbroglio is a fundamental issue of military discipline. The general’s comments were a grave infraction of long-standing protocols that undergirds military-civilian relations. In the worst case scenario, a commissioned officer has the option of resigning outright, or pursuing complaints through established channels. There is no indication McChrystal took either route.
But his firing also comes during an inauspicious tipping point for the conflict in Afghanistan. The war is entering its ninth year as the increasingly bloody conflict is macerating public and political support. McChrystal’s remarks are being widely interpreted as a proxy for the frustration being experienced by soldiers on the ground. The scattershot tactics of leadership in Washington are doing little to stem the tide in the complex war.
Make no mistake – the strategy in Afghanistan has fallen into startling disarray. Critics can point to a litany of spot-on complaints about President Obama’s wartime leadership. These include taking an inordinate amount of time to decide on a troop surge, arguably putting the Taliban and al-Qaeda on notice by announcing a 2011 withdrawal date, then allowing policy to languish amid signs that the Afghan government has become an increasingly unreliable and corrupt partner. With or without General McChrystal, it is clear that a major rethinking of strategy is required, which should include a leadership shake-up.
That said, both Democrats and Republicans have for years made political fodder of the military. The dismissal of General McChrystal should be an opportunity to declare a moratorium on such behavior. War is a sober business, and the decision-making process requires a strong bond of trust between civilians and military officers. Under no circumstances can it ever be a good idea for an active-duty soldier to publicly disparage the civilian authority structure, or their decisions.
