By Brigitte L. Nacos
I wonder whether General Stanley McChrystal, the top U.S. commander in Afghanistan, has forgotten the one chapter in the annals of history that deals with the firing of General Douglas McArthur by President Harry Truman in 1951. Although MacArthur was one of the best-known and admired military leaders of World War II, he lost his position for repeatedly going public to voice his disagreement with the president’s Korea and China policy.
In public appearances of his choice, McChrystal has forcefully lobbied and pressured the White House and Defense Department to embrace his new strategy for winning in Afghanistan without time consuming deliberation. Obviously, the timely leak of his 66-page assessment of the situation in Afghanistan and the request for significantly more troops were part of his public offensive.
To be sure, generals should speak their mind, when it comes to the conduct of war or other military questions and issues. But they should do so within the military chain of command and in private meetings with both military and civilian leaders in Washington.
More recently, top military leaders have been criticized for not standing up to Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and his team during the planning of the Iraq invasion and for not insisting on far more troops for the post-invasion phase in their dealings with the civilian leaders in the Pentagon and White House. The only one who did speak out, General Eric Shinseki, the Army Chief of Staff, was eventually forced into retirement. But unlike McChrystal now, Shinseki did not leak his written assessments on Iraq War planning or lobbied in favor of his position in public appearances of his choice. On one occasion, he answered questions during his appearance before the Senate Armed Services Committee. That was the beginning of the end of his military career.
Had McChrystal simply given his strong views during a Senate hearing and in response to Senators’ questions, there would not be any reason to criticize him. But in view of his going public approach, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates was right, when he said that both civilian and military leaders must "provide our best advice to the president candidly, but privately.” And emphasizing that he was speaking for the Department of Defense, Gates said, “once the commander in chief makes his decisions, we will salute and execute those decisions faithfully and to the best of our ability.”
That is the way it must be in this democracy.
I wonder whether General Stanley McChrystal, the top U.S. commander in Afghanistan, has forgotten the one chapter in the annals of history that deals with the firing of General Douglas McArthur by President Harry Truman in 1951. Although MacArthur was one of the best-known and admired military leaders of World War II, he lost his position for repeatedly going public to voice his disagreement with the president’s Korea and China policy.
In public appearances of his choice, McChrystal has forcefully lobbied and pressured the White House and Defense Department to embrace his new strategy for winning in Afghanistan without time consuming deliberation. Obviously, the timely leak of his 66-page assessment of the situation in Afghanistan and the request for significantly more troops were part of his public offensive.
To be sure, generals should speak their mind, when it comes to the conduct of war or other military questions and issues. But they should do so within the military chain of command and in private meetings with both military and civilian leaders in Washington.
More recently, top military leaders have been criticized for not standing up to Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and his team during the planning of the Iraq invasion and for not insisting on far more troops for the post-invasion phase in their dealings with the civilian leaders in the Pentagon and White House. The only one who did speak out, General Eric Shinseki, the Army Chief of Staff, was eventually forced into retirement. But unlike McChrystal now, Shinseki did not leak his written assessments on Iraq War planning or lobbied in favor of his position in public appearances of his choice. On one occasion, he answered questions during his appearance before the Senate Armed Services Committee. That was the beginning of the end of his military career.
Had McChrystal simply given his strong views during a Senate hearing and in response to Senators’ questions, there would not be any reason to criticize him. But in view of his going public approach, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates was right, when he said that both civilian and military leaders must "provide our best advice to the president candidly, but privately.” And emphasizing that he was speaking for the Department of Defense, Gates said, “once the commander in chief makes his decisions, we will salute and execute those decisions faithfully and to the best of our ability.”
That is the way it must be in this democracy.
I subscribed to your blog when is the next post,Thanks for such a nice post.
Posted by: pass a hair drug test | November 07, 2009 at 12:55 AM
В мире основная проблема - это необразованность и наркомания
http://www.tr-factor.ru
http://www.narcononmsk.ru/na
Posted by: лечение наркомании нарконон | October 26, 2009 at 11:24 AM
Professor Nacos,
You make a valid point regarding American generals speaking out of turn - in my generation, I seem to recall GEN Wesley Clark being relieved of command for publicly opposing President Clinton's decisions regarding the Balkans. But I also believe a large part of the criticism you direct to GEN McChrystal in this post is fairly redirected to his boss. As I've said before on your blog, I understand presidential decision-making for Afghanistan is hard; in comparison, the risk/reward and cost/benefit assessments for Iraq were much more obvious. However, this particular controversy can be blamed on Obama's conflicting behavior on Afghanistan, which has risked making an already unreasonable job in Afghanistan more difficult and setting up GEN McChrystal for failure - and not just for media question/answer sessions.
In GEN McChrystal's defense, Candidate Obama spoke out forcefully in support of Operation Enduring Freedom. Then in March, following lessons recently learned in Operation Iraqi Freedom, President Obama approved changes in the strategy in Afghanistan, in part by appointing GEN McChrystal as the OEF commander.
But now, after having seemingly made his decision, President Obama is delaying the commitment of the resources needed to implement a COIN "surge" in Afghanistan.
Due to these conflicting signals from his boss, it may have been too confusing for GEN McChrystal to realize the politically correct responses to cover for the president during the media question/answer session. The general may have, in fact, believed he was speaking in support of the president who had sent the general to Afghanistan to do a job, where the strategy changes and his on-the-job experience have informed his recommendation for more troops.
As well, part of the confusion may be getting used to the new boss, who's not like the old boss. In contrast to Obama, when President Bush made his decisions to approve the counter-insurgency strategy and attendant resources/personnel "surge" for Operation Iraqi Freedom, they weren't separate decisions: the strategy change came with the resources needed to implement the new strategy. Bush's concurrent decisions for OIF gave a clear signal to GEN Petraeus of Bush's commander's intent for Iraq, which allowed Petraeus to speak to the media about Iraq from the same page as the president.
But the current president, unlike his predecessor, made the decision for strategy changes in Afghanistan and then has withheld the practical commitment needed to implement them. Therefore, President Obama's intent for Afghanistan has become opaque, which has made it difficult for GEN McChrystal to speak to the media about Afghanistan from the same page as his boss.
We all thought we knew Obama's intent, but right now, we - including the general and the other Americans and allies trying their best to accomplish mission in Afghanistan - don't know what the US president intends for Afghanistan. That's bad: anyone who's had experience as a subordinate in a real-world mission with real-world consequences knows leadership uncertainty makes for a fragile work environment. This controversy is a manifestation of that.
P.S. Related relevant reading, from the Washington Post: Don't Settle for Stalemate in Afghanistan, by Ike Skelton and Joe Lieberman
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/16/AR2009101602650.html
Posted by: Eric Chen | October 18, 2009 at 10:56 PM
my question is why now? they've been doing this for a long time now. but if this really pushed thru then it's a good thing to afghan people.
Posted by: Make Money | October 15, 2009 at 01:41 AM
I think President obama preparing to quit Afghan war... is it good for obama?????? i don't think so...but my friends told its a good for Afghan.
Posted by: bus | October 07, 2009 at 01:00 AM