Political Discussions
General McChrystal
Posted by jeremyjanson • 10/07/09 • Subscribe to this Discussion [RSS] • Report This Topic
Topics: chain of command, foreign policy, free speech, lobbying, military discipline, obama
Many people are very upset with the General because he went on 60 minutes and a few other places to share his discontent with the presidents current message on the war (note: not orders, no orders have yet been given, he is merely speaking against the current political winds leaking from Washington). The argument for usually points out that the General is a concerned citizen who is petitioning for redress and has not yet received orders from the President (at which point he must shut his mouth and fulfill them one way or another,) with the argument against being that as a General he should have no influence in civilian politics. He is sometimes compared to McArthur, even though McArthur actually did violate orders.
Interestingly, this is very similar to the debate you can have about lobbying.
So tell me, should we hang him or promote him? Is he out of line or is he doing right by his troops and his mission? And is it healthy for this kind of dialogue to occur between the American people and top Military brass in a day and age when the common people have a much greater say in Foreign Policy then they have had in the past.
User Comments
-
I hadn't noticed a huge dispute, but here's the show that I haven't seen yet: www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=5345009n
And here's a piece about his speech in London and tensions that followed: www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/barackobama/6259582/Whi...
Could you provide some links about who is upset? "Many people" is pretty vague.-
Sure:
www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/05/AR2009100502241.ht... - Eugene Robinson
www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/10/07/the_muzzle_wont_fit_98603.htm... - Ruben Nazarrete, criticising the criticisers.
Check the comments on this one for the more populist side:
www.tnr.com/blog/the-plank/how-soon-liberals-forget-mcchrystal-the-new-shin...
-
-
Maybe he's running for president in 2012
-
Ultimately it is the president's call. If Obama can work with and has confidence in McChrystal, that's all that matters. It sure would be interesting to know what was said during their conversation in Copenhagen last week.
Edited to add: But as one man in the Telegraph piece points out, it is pretty unprecedented for a general to publicly lobby for his policy stance. -
Interesting related article about Jim Jones: www.politico.com/news/stories/1009/28007.html
-
with a name like that, there's got to be a Kool-Aid joke presenting itself
-
Oh lord. That is unfortunate.
-
-
Well it is understandable that his frustration is mounting. He was picked by Obama to oversee military actions in Afghanistan and when he submits his report, he gets...nothing. No communications at all, until he states in public that the President has not spoken with him.
Should he have done that? I don't know, but he did. Should Obama have been in more contact with his Generals? I do know the answer to that one. Yes.
So Obama's multi-faceted domestic policies are keeping him from his number one priority of keeping America safe. As Commander-in-Chief he needs to focus on the two wars we are in, whether he wants to end them or continue them. Either way, they should be his top priority until we win or we pull out. I am not saying he should neglect all things domestic, but he should get his priorities in line.-
Because the answers are so darned easy. Because he has no opposition to face within his own party either. Because blood is cheap . . .
Actually, I understand McChrystal's sense of urgency, but I also understand that Obama needs and has a bit of time to work this out in all its implications, not just those in Afghanistan that McChrystal has in mind. Check out that article about Jim Jones above. It points to the cultural differences between policy making in the Obama White House and what happens in a top-down command structure like the Pentagon (which itself is not free of politics and also certainly not a model of efficiency). -
Oh boo-hoo, Obama has to make a hard decision..
Since that is such an obvious problem for him, it's all but too obvious what a mistake electing him to the post. -
@clio: At the same time though, our constitution was designed with the idea that aspects of government can and should counteract each other with any power they have, even at lower levels. I see no problem with McChrystal using his Ethnos and abuses against him against the President. It doesn't interfere with him doing his job - actually helps it. Checks and Balances is the idea that, just because you have obligations to someone, does not mean you should be writing new obligations in the margins and accept all abuse from them.
-
Checks and balances refers to our three branches of government: executive, legislative, and judicial. The military is not a separate branch of government. It is subordinate to the president (or the governors in the case of the Guard).
(By the way, I don't understand your second sentence.) -
In strict terms you are right but the greater meaning of checks and balances is allowing government entities to play off of each other, so it's naught but a semantic technicality.
As for my second sentence, Ethnos is the credibility someone has because of position and education, and by using the abuses against him I mean by speaking truth against the President. The combination of those two could provide a valuable grassroots check against Obama's war plans, just as the Legislature and Judiciary provide check against the President in normal times with regards to law and order. -
I still don't follow you, but it sounds like you're trying to legitimize insubordination on the part of the military. Our system has worked pretty well over the past 200+ years. I don't see any reason to turn the military into a branch of its own.
-
"you're trying to legitimize insubordination" Not quite, because no orders have yet been given.
Because of changes in American society since the Vietnam War that have given normal voters the ability to influence military decision making, it seems to logical to expand "Our system [that] has worked pretty well over the past 200+ years" to include lobbying from interested parties like military commanders prior to orders being finalized, as peace activist groups also have the ability to lobby and do affect these orders.
See, this is EXACTLY the kind of stuff that has worked so well for 200+ years. Whether that authority is lawmaking under Mr. President, judging under Mr. President or working under Mr. President as a State Governor, our entire system is built off of parties using the power they have, so yes, it is very much in line with the way our government works. -
Besides undermining our democracy, that would break the army, which depends on clear lines of authority and that oath about obeying and defending the constitution . . . It is not just some random interested party.
Call me conservative, but that's the way I feel. The constitution matters, including that little clause about who is commander in chief. So do the military's traditions and culture within that system.
Of course, the military already does lobby, but there's a time and a place for that, as Secretary Gates has already made clear. McChrystal gets that too. Indeed, I could not imagine any member of the general officer corps countenancing what I think you are suggesting. -
I thought that the Veep was in charge of foriegn policy... a precident going back almost a decade
-
-
This has been mirrored in the UK. The recently retired Commander of UK Forces final months in the job were characterised by thinly veiled critcisim of the UK government. Since he retired he has been more forthright.
Frankly military commanders should just get on with completing their mission as tasked by their government. Any recomendations they need to make should be made in private. Airing the dirty laundry in public is jaw droppingly stupid. It indirectly damages the morale of troops in thearter because their families will lack confidence in the mission and it hands encouragement to the enemy.
This is pretty much unprecidented, on both sides of the pond, and polybore can only put it down to the strain of 8 years of conflict without clear objectives and while under strength for the task.
No one should be under any illusions about the gravity of the current situation. Despite 8 years of occupation we are in a position where a tribal millitia can mount a massed attack in broad daylight and temporarily overrun a US military position killing 8 US personnel.-
It's been a long time since I read it, but here's a good book on the history of civil-military relations in Britain: H. Strachan, The Politics of the British Army, books.google.com/books?id=AD5HXrCoMKkC&lpg=PP1&ots=IZz4MGjVfV&dq=hew strachan politics of the british army&pg=PP1#v=onepage&q=&f=false
The classic case of insubordination that I can remember from another source was Henry Wilson on the eve of World War One with respect to Ireland. I think he got away with it to. I find it fascinating how these things come up in liberal of democracies, which some old political science might lead us not to expect.
The only literature I can think of for the US dates back nearly half a century: Samuel Huntington, The Soldier and the State, books.google.com/books?id=1PqFe0rsfdcC&printsec=frontcover&dq=huntington+so... It's still influential, although I didn't find it very useful for understanding anything outside of the American case back when it was written.
-
Add Your Comment
Login to leave a message.
