THE PLANK OCTOBER 6, 2009
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
Liberal pundits, Defense Secretary Robert Gates, and National Security Advisor James Jones are in agreement: General Stanley McChrystal, commander of U.S. and NATO forces in Afghanistan, was wrong to give public voice to his views about the best way forward in that beleaguered country. Yale law professor Bruce Ackerman accused McChrystal of “a plain violation of the principle of civilian control.” Washington Post columnist Eugene Robinson put it most bluntly: "The men with the stars on their shoulders … need to shut up and salute." Some are even drawing parallels between McChrystal and Douglas MacArthur. All these critics are wrong.
The principle of civilian control means that once the competent civilian authorities have made a binding decision, military leaders are obligated to support it and carry it out. If they cannot in good conscience do so, they should resign. The principle does not mean that military leaders are barred from publicly expressing their best judgment as to the strategy and tactics best suited to the problem at hand before the civilian authorities have made their decision.
Not only did MacArthur publicly disagree with President Truman’s Korean War policy toward the Chinese after the president had made his decision, but he also acted in direct violation of that policy in a deliberate effort to undermine it. He was, in the strict sense of the term, insubordinate. In firing him, Truman was acting to preserve the constitutional order.
The current situation is entirely different. McChrystal is offering his professional judgment well in advance of a presidential decision. Yes, he’s doing it in public, but that’s something that small-“d” democrats should welcome. Combined with the leaking of his report, his London speech has triggered a public debate that is much more robust and better informed than it would otherwise have been.
Jones suggested that military advice should "come up through the chain of command," while Gates chastised that it is "imperative" that military and civilian leaders "provide our best advice to the president candidly but privately." How quickly we forget: That was the rationale used to muzzle General Eric Shinseki during the run up to the Iraq war. Wouldn’t we have been better off to have had a no-holds-barred debate involving senior military officials prior to the invasion about the number of troops it would take to stabilize Iraq after the invasion? Wouldn’t we have had the kind of public discussion that the American people deserved but did not get?
Does McChrystal’s speech put pressure on the president, as some have charged? Sure, and what’s wrong with that? The general is saying that the mission the president articulated back in March after a thorough policy review requires more troops than are now on the ground in Afghanistan. If he’s right about that, the president owes the country one of two things: send the troops or redefine the mission. McChrystal’s intervention makes it more difficult to fudge the decision. In my book, that’s a good thing. And people who don’t want more troops sent should agree.
Click here to read Galston's response to critics of this piece
5 comments
Two very simple distinctions from General Shinseki. First, with respect to the appropriate role of military commanders in attempting to shape policy, Gen. Shinseki was answering a question directly posed to him during Congressional testimony. As to the policy, the other substantial distinction is that the civilians, namely Paul Wolfowitz, then simply said that Shinseki's judgment was completely wrong, and ordered the military to undertake the same scope of mission with less resources than it deemed necessary. In this case, I sense that the debate is whether to maintain the scope of the mission as currently defined. I do not sense that the civilian commanders are telling Gen. McChrystal that he can accomplish his current mission with less troops than he thinks are minimally necessary
- gator27
October 6, 2009 at 11:57am
Galston is, in effect, saying that Obama only has himself to blame for this. Obama defined the mission in March, and the general was only giving his advice as to the best strategy/tactics for achieving that mission. What Galston ignores, however, is the timing of the general's pronouncement, which occurred only after it was clear that Obama was reconsidering the mission. Under the circumstances, the general's pronouncement may well have been his attempt to undermine Obama's effort to reconsider the mission. In that light, how would Galston characterize the general's behavior.
- raylward
October 6, 2009 at 12:06pm
gator is dead on about Shinseki, he had to answer Congress, but if he went around the country (or worse, outside of it) giving speeches as to why he was right and Bush was wrong, he would have been way out of line. Does McChrystal’s speech put pressure on the president, as some have charged? Sure, and what’s wrong with that? I suppose it must have been interesting for Galston to have been on Mars, in a cave, with his hands covering his eyes and ears but the wrong is evident. Republicans are cheering the US losing an Olympic bid. Now every Republican will be an armchair general blaming every death in Afghanistan to Obama not listening to McChrystal. McChrystal has no put himself into the middle of a political fracas, where Generals should not be. I understand he wants to cover his ass, but historians would have known his position To be honest I agree with McChrystal but the problem is not the type of pressure people of good will will exert.
- blackton
October 6, 2009 at 12:43pm
I agree with you blackie (except I don't celebrate not getting the Olympics), but remember that liberals lauded Shinseki for "speaking truth to power." Don't hear that phrase bandied about these days about McChrystal, do we? Still, I wish he had been more discreet about it.
- butchie b
October 6, 2009 at 2:11pm
I think Shinsecki was compelled to answer the question posed in a Congressional hearing -- that's not quite the same thing as going public in the manner McChrystal did. Given that Obama is clearly reconsidering our policy and strategy in Afghanistan, I think McChrystal ought not to have gone public. However, whatever complaint we might have with him, he is probably right; we haven't put enough troops into Afghanistan to control the place. It's time to decide whether we are willing to do what it takes. Neil
- purcellneil
October 7, 2009 at 2:09pm