Yale law professor Bruce Ackerman argues in the Washington Post that it was inappropriate for General Stanley McChrystal to announce his preferred Afghanistan strategy and publicly disagree with Vice President Joe Biden. Such statements, Ackerman said, were “a plain violation of the principle of civilian control.” The New America Foundation’s Michael Cohen makes a similar argument.
According to Ackerman,
As commanding general in Afghanistan, McChrystal has no business making such public pronouncements. Under law, he doesn’t have the right to attend the National Security Council as it decides our strategy. To the contrary, the Goldwater-Nichols Act of 1986 explicitly names the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff as the National Security Council’s exclusive military adviser. If the president wanted McChrystal’s advice, he was perfectly free to ask him to accompany Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs, when the council held its first meeting on Afghanistan this week.
McChrystal’s “breach,” Ackerman argues, “should provoke a broader discussion of the meaning of civilian control in the 21st century.”
Ackerman’s essay raises some interesting issues, but I wonder if he’s making too much of McChrystal’s comments (as is Cohen). There’s ample precedent for Cabinet Secretaries and other presidential appointees making policy statements in advance of a Presidential decision. While the military is, and should, be different, I also seem to recall other instances in which it was widely known that military leaders disagreed with their civilian leadership, and yet no one saw any threat to the principle of civilian control or the President’s authority as commander-in-chief. Presidents have removed military leaders over strategy and policy disagreements in the past, and no doubt will again, and not every general who disagrees with the President is another General MacArthur.
Bruce Bartlett says:
McChrystal should have just told Bob Woodward what he thought off the record. That’s the way Colin Powell would have done it.
October 4, 2009, 7:08 amBT says:
Are there any instances of this happening under Bush? Chances are it did but I can’t remember.
October 4, 2009, 7:20 amneurodoc says:
“I also seem to recall other instances in which it was widely known that military leaders disagreed with their civilian leadership”
It’s not about disagreeing with their civilian leadership per se, it’s about being seen as publically lobbying for support of their choice of direction. Bruce Bartlett‘s wry comment is very apt.
October 4, 2009, 7:21 amHarry Schell says:
The big difference here is the fragile ego that is Obama, the utter failure of his adminsistration to succeed (at least in their announced goals) to manage economic and foreign affairs…and the slobbering desire of media pundits to preserve their hero by demonizing anyone who not in similar thrall.
The demonization of Obama’s “enemies” has hit high pitch because there is nothing else to sustain the adulation and “hope”. And this trend will not change, because Obama’s choices and priorities, from healthcare to climate to foreign policy, do not reflect where the majority of Americans want to go. He and his cadre have shown themselves to be alternately inept, insular and full of failed “progressive” ideas (not to mention of themselves).
The only alternative is to react with excessive horror or outrage to any challenge…not the substance, but to discredit the source. Worked for Alinsky, but therein lies a truth about Obama he hid during the election and can’t hide now.
He is a marxist, and whatever he does will start there first in its inspiration.
October 4, 2009, 7:31 amPatHMV says:
I’m afraid I’m going to have to go with Ackerman here, at least at first impression. The General gave this speech in London to an international group. I don’t think that’s an appropriate forum for a U.S. general to be disputing the civilian leadership of our government. When some general years ago publicly called President Clinton a “pot-smoking draft dodger,” I thought then-President Clinton should have fired him on the spot, even while agreed with the sentiment.
It’s very bad that the President is so apparently indecisive on Afghanistan, but the fact is that the strategy there is ultimately his call to make, and it’s not the place of generals to try to exert public pressure (domestic, foreign, or among the world “elite”) to push the President in a particular direction… at least not as directly as Gen. McChrystal seems to have done here.
When some Army leadership disagreed with President Bush, they did so through recently retired or resigned colleagues, or resigned themselves in order to become talking heads on CNN. That was itself a bit unseemly, to me, but entirely consistent with the principles of civilian control of the military.
Ackerman is engaging in a bit of hyperbole, though. One speech, disagreeing not with the (silent on this issue) President but rather with the Vice President (not normally in the chain of command), does not a “MacArthur” make.
October 4, 2009, 7:47 amanonymous says:
Obama is lucky Norman Schwartzkopf is not running the show in Afghanistan. Can’t imagine he would have put up with Obama’s bullshit this long.
October 4, 2009, 7:55 amEricPWJohnson says:
Since McClellan at Antietam, Generals have had strong disagreements with their President.
However McClellan was not advocating invading Canada, MacArthur was asking for authority to EXPAND a war into another country and asked for TACTICAL control of theater Nuclear Weapons (yes we had theater nukes at that time). All this General did was ask for the tools to finish the job he was sent there to do.
Not the first time Generals have said this publically, in fact – just about all of them have done so.
October 4, 2009, 8:04 ammls says:
During the Bush Administration, a number of people made precisely the opposite argument, namely that military leaders had failed their duty by not publicly voicing their doubts about various aspects of the administration’s assumptions and strategies. It should be noted that there is a member of the Obama cabinet, General Shinseki, who is in that position because he was fired by Bush for publicly disagreeing with the administration’s Iraq strategy.
There is no doubt some tension between the principle of civilian control and the public interest in making sure that the public and its congressional representatives have the benefit of honest assessments from military leadership. There needs to be some distinction drawn between the identification of national goals and political objectives, about which the military does not necessarily have any superior expertise, and the development of military strategy and provision of resources to achieve those goals and objectives. Military leaders should be much more hesitant to speak publicly about the former than the latter.
Ackerman, however, makes no such distinctions, and instead implies that it is somehow a violation of the Constitution for McCrystal to say anything publicly that might be inconvenient or embarrassing to the Obama administration. I’m guessing that Ackerman didn’t say anything like that about Shinseki.
October 4, 2009, 8:16 amCharlie Bratten says:
General Shinseki was not fired. He served his full term as Army Chief of Staff.
October 4, 2009, 8:31 amPersonFromPorlock says:
So, if a president is surrounded by advisers who don’t understand military problems but do understand the importance of controlling access to the president, what’s a general to do?
It may well be true that speaking publicly was the only way McChrystal could get the message to Obama; it may also be true that Obama should now fire him for violating the chain of command, regardless of the correctness of that message. Soldiering is a job where you can get killed doing what you have to: getting fired for it is no disgrace.
October 4, 2009, 8:33 amArthurKirkland says:
This is Gen. McChrystal’s second apparent swing-and-miss (the first involved the Pat Tillman debacle). Both had political overtones. If he is less than superb at his job — which, he should recall, is to execute the instructions of the commander in chief — I hope he is reassigned. If he is indispensable, I hope he has been issued a three-inch leash.
I hope to hear, in an appropriate forum, Gen. McChrystal’s opinion concerning how the United States got into the current clustermuck in Afghanistan.
I give Gen. McChrystal credit for this: He is no chickenhawk.
October 4, 2009, 8:34 amArthurKirkland says:
It may well be true that speaking publicly was the only way McChrystal could get the message to Obama;
I believe I saw a photograph of a private conservation between the president and the general, separated by perhaps two feet, earlier this week.
October 4, 2009, 8:37 amGordon Langston says:
I seem to recall McChrystal commenting that he’s only talked to Obama once
October 4, 2009, 8:38 amdrunkdriver says:
Ackerman is overreacting here (and what’s with the NSC pedantry? It strikes me as filler, as if he didn’t have enough to write so he threw in some legalism). I have to wonder if Ackerman’s real motivation isn’t his own view of whether we should expand our role in Afghanistan.
Nor do I believe, contrary to the arch prediction, that if Obama dislikes McChrystal’s speechifying, future generals will not be allowed to give candid advice to presidents. The need for unvarnished communication is simply too great. If McArthur’s outrageous and perhaps illegal behavior couldn’t rend the civilian/military bond of trust, McChrystal’s speech supporting a policy he is widely known to have suggested to the president- and which is in line with what the president promised us in his election campaign- sure as hell isn’t going to.
In a similar vein, the views of generals have often if not always become widely known, and when presidents disagree, this has always created political problems. But presidents have always and will always have to make those decisions (as Kennedy did in refusing to expand Vietnam, Bush II did in overruling his generals- first by going into Iraq light, and later and less disastrously by ordering a surge; and as Obama may yet decide to do in Afghanistan).
McChrystal gave away no secrets. He also did not overstep his bounds. The very premise of the article, that he shouldn’t “disagree publicly” with the president, is a misrepresentation- the op-ed piece does not show that he ever did so! Ackerman will just have to put away his crying towel.
October 4, 2009, 8:41 ammls says:
This is what Obama told Tom Brokaw on Shinseki’s appointment:
BROKAW: He’s the man who lost his job in the Bush Administration because he said we will need more troops in Iraq than Secretary of Defense Don Rumsfeld thought we would need at that time.
PRESIDENT-ELECT OBAMA: He was right.
So while I accept Charlie Bratten’s correction, the Shinseki “precedent” seems pretty relevant to this discussion.
October 4, 2009, 9:38 amdrunkdriver says:
re Shinseki, while he was allowed to serve out his appointment, Rumsfeld clearly clipped his wings, as was widely reported at the time (and reflected in Shinseki’s Wikipedia entry).
October 4, 2009, 9:55 amCato The Elder says:
I agree with Ackerman & PatHMV as well. I’m feeling more and more that our top generals in Afghanistan & Iraq have becom political generals, more interested in maneuvering within the DOD hierarchy rather than on the battlefield. This trend is inimical to whatever hope of “victory” we might have once had.
But then I don’t know too much either.
October 4, 2009, 10:00 amAnon21 says:
The Shinseki incident occurred in a very different context. Gen. Shinseki was directly asked in a Congressional hearing what force levels would be appropriate, and it doesn’t seem to me that he was legally free not to answer, or ethically free to respond with a lie. McChrystal sought out this opportunity to fire a warning shot across Obama’s bow. I agree that it was inappropriate; as to whether it’s a firing offense, I trust our Commander in Chief’s judgment.
October 4, 2009, 10:23 amDangerMouse says:
I believe I saw a photograph of a private conservation between the president and the general, separated by perhaps two feet, earlier this week.
Yeah, their first meeting in months lasted all of 25 minutes. Let me give you a hint: it’s not helpful to Obama to point out that he only meets with the most important general in the most important theater of the war for only 25 minutes, after only speaking to him once before.
Harry Schell nailed it. This is about destroying someone seemingly hurting Obama.
October 4, 2009, 10:24 amMLS says:
McChrystal has been given what is apparently a straighforward order: “Win”.
McChrystal has apparently assessed the military situation and concluded that more assets are needed to carry out the order.
At this point “civilian control” of the military should pursue one of two options. Either provide the assets or issue a new order.
Merely as an aside, given our experience in Viet Nam where the provision of more and more assets did not result in the intended outcome (there is a lot to be said for “home field advantage”, and clearly this was enjoyed by the North Vietnamese forces), in my view the more productive outcome would be to withdraw, rethink the entire current strategy, and then issue a new order reflecting the reality of the situation we are facing in the region. Russia learned this lesson the hard way, and to me it seems foolhardy to repeat its mistakes.
October 4, 2009, 10:41 amneurodoc says:
If he proves unsatisfactory at his job, he probably will be reassigned, as was the general who predeceded him when Mullens concluded that person wasn’t suitable for the job. But the job entails more than listening and carrying out orders; it entails assessing and advising as well. No reason to think McChrystal won’t perform up to expectations, is there? And yes, he certainly is no chickenhawk.
October 4, 2009, 10:58 amSG says:
In any case, I don’t expect Obama to fire McChrystal – that would come dangerously close to exhibiting leadership. Instead, I expect him to establish some parameters and then leave it to Congress to set his war strategy. Clear, unambiguous parameters like “Afghanistan is in Asia”.
October 4, 2009, 11:18 amArthurKirkland says:
Russia learned this lesson the hard way, and to me it seems foolhardy to repeat its mistakes.
The United States has been to the same class in Afghanistan for a number of years.
October 4, 2009, 11:22 amSarcastro says:
New definition of leadership: Fire those who disagree with you!
October 4, 2009, 11:47 amChrisTS says:
Exactly.
October 4, 2009, 11:56 amI think the President should keep the general where he is or not depending on his ability to serve in that role. I imagine someone – probably a military brass higher-up – can convey any message about appropriate fora for differences of opinion. Firing a general simply for speaking out of turn – if that is what he did – would be petty and irresponsible.
ArthurKirkland says:
No reason to think McChrystal won’t perform up to expectations, is there?
His reported conduct with respect to the Tillman episode raises questions about judgment and character, but he deserves a thorough examination of that issue, as do those who would rely on or question his judgment and character.
October 4, 2009, 11:58 amCash says:
Robert McNamara is the man who put an end to the practice of uniformed officers speaking out on the issues of the day, which in the early 1960s generally meant attacking anyone who didn’t see the Soviet threat the way they did.
McNamara ordered their proposed remarks be reviewed by his office, with anything disagreeing with JFK’s policies getting cut. The military and its right-wing supporters did not take kindly to being censored and McNamara had to sack a few offenders before the rest got the message.
Nowadays, the military says so little in public on national security and foreign policy that it is hard to recall that in the late 1950s high-ranking officers routinely denounced the White House. That’s the context for Eisenhower’s Farewell Address, in which he warned of a “military-industrial complex” subverting democratic institutions.
As a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Kennedy had seen up close how out-of-control the military was. They hadn’t hesitated to take on Ike — what would they do to a former junior naval officer?
McNamara’s solution was to deny them the right to say anything in public that contradicted policies as determined by the White House, SecState and SecDef. If they wanted to disagree with the president, they needed first to take off their uniform. As citizens they could say what they wanted. As commissioned officers, they served at the preasure of the president. What got the Joint Chiefs on board with McNamara’s directive was that they, too, were frequent targets of rogue officers.
McNamara succeeded so well in muzzling the military we’ve forgotten it wasn’t always so.
October 4, 2009, 12:06 pmSG says:
Sarcastro, you’re right. True leadership lies in allowing your subordinates to openly defy you. That allows you to demonstrate how truly secure your authority is. After all, who’s the true leader? It can’t be the person who’s orders get followed – it must be the person who’s subordinates openly defy their orders.
Gee, it’s fun to completely make up words and put them in other people’s mouths. They always say such stupid things that way.
October 4, 2009, 12:26 pmSG says:
And for the record, I didn’t say, and didn’t mean to imply, that Obama should fire McChrystal, only that I didn’t think he would fire McChrystal. Whether or not McChrystal’s actions warrant dismissal is completely outside my observation, which was simply that Obama seems unwilling and is perhaps unable to actually make decisions – good or bad. Instead he seems content to make speeches and bask in applause, while leaving the actual governing to others. So far, he has been impressively spineless.
And also for the record, I would rather Obama be spineless than exhibit a spine if his decisions would be poor ones. Firing McChrystal certainly could qualify as a poor decision – I don’t know enough to have an opinion on the matter.
October 4, 2009, 12:33 pmAnon21 says:
You’ve fallen into the typical neo-con trap of believing that true security and power lie in crushing those who disagree with you or have interests that are in conflict with your own. This is the same philosophy which prompted the general freakout over the very idea of negotiating with Iran and North Korea, and which declared that Obama’s handshake with Hugo Chavez was nothing less than the end of the Republic.
Those who wield true power wisely (including President Obama as Commander in Chief) are secure enough to be able to ignore those who nip at their heels. If Obama believes McChrystal’s military abilities are important enough that removing him from his current position would do harm to the national interest, he simply won’t do it, unless McChrystal takes actions that are obviously incompatible with him remaining in command, a la MacArthur. Obama does not need to demonstrate his power by either firing subordinates who disagree with him, or, I don’t know, launching unprovoked wars of aggression against weaker countries.
Foreign policy based on machismo and wounded pride got us into a mess. I’m very grateful that Obama is smarter than you are, SG.
October 4, 2009, 12:36 pmAndrew Hyman says:
Regardless of whether McChrystal should or should not be fired or the like, comparing him to MacArthur is very much mistaken. In March of 1951, without consulting anyone in Washington, MacArthur sent an ultimatum to China demanding withdrawal of Chinese troops from Korea, lest China be obliterated. That occurred while Truman was trying to negotiate a ceasefire with China. AFAIK, McChrystal has not done anything remotely similar.
October 4, 2009, 12:58 pmHarry Eagar says:
Cash sez:
‘Nowadays, the military says so little in public on national security and foreign policy that it is hard to recall that in the late 1950s high-ranking officers routinely denounced the White House.’
That was then, this is now.
The key question is, what did the generals tell the president in private? (Which is where they should have been able to talk turkey.) Bush said publicly that he would set force levels at the point where the generals said they needed to be to succeed.
If we accept that Bush was not lying, then the generals must have said the levels were adequate. We know they weren’t. So, either the generals didn’t tell Bush they needed a bigger army, or they did and he ignored them and they did not resign.
Or Bush was lying and the generals did not resign.
Any way you cut it, the generals, Shinseki excepted, either were incompetent or dishonest or, more likely, both. There is no way the high command does not come out of the last 7 years as complete failures.
I cannot tell if Obama gets this. Bush didn’t.
October 4, 2009, 1:04 pmSG says:
And you, Anon21, have fallen into the trap of believing that Obama’s shit doesn’t stink. My point remains that Obama hasn’t actually made any hard decisions – neither good nor bad. He let Congress drive the stimulus, cap-and-trade, and health care reform (Is having a public option a deal-breaker for Obama? I don’t know – do you?). He says Afghanistan is critical, but won’t back or reject his general’s recommendations. He goes to the UN to talk happy talk about a nuclear-free world knowing that the Iranians have an ongoing secret nuclear program. Gitmo remains open. Hell, he just let the IOC roll him. You want someone to give a pleasant, content free-speech (preferably about himself – see the IOC)? Obama’s your man. You want a leader who has a clear vision and the drive to make it happen? To date, Obama has yet to demonstrate that he has the ability to make hard decisions, if necessary, to realize that vision.
And this is all independent of whether or not I agree with that vision.
October 4, 2009, 1:07 pmBorris says:
What General McChrystal did was wrong because …
Under Bush: Dissent is the highest form of patriotism
Under Obama: Dissent is the highest form of racism
What was McChrystal thinking?
October 4, 2009, 1:12 pmAnon21 says:
Where to begin? Obama does not have command-and-control power over Congress. He set the terms of the debate on both the stimulus and healthcare, but he cannot force Baucus or Conrad or Snowe to give him a bill incorporating all of the provisions he wants. He can argue and persuade, he can offer them inducements, he can use his bully pulpit, but in the end each Senator is responsible for his or her own vote, and Obama has used his office to its capacity to attempt to sway those votes, both publicly and behind the scenes. As for the public option ambiguity, it’s probably a ploy, per this account of the White House’s tactical approach to the whole debate. He clearly wants it to be in the bill, but elevating it to the status of dealbreaker will basically give “moderates” something to mindlessly oppose.
Gitmo? It was never supposed to be closed by this point–if you were paying attention, the order was for closure within one year, aka January of 2010. Do you expect him to snap his fingers and make it go away? If it isn’t closed by that time, again, we know who to blame and it still isn’t President (recall: not Dictator) Obama, who has to negotiate with coordinate branches of government to get his domestic policies enacted.
Moving towards nuclear disarmament is the only sane and sensible policy option available. That’s true regardless of what rogue nations are doing with their own nuclear programs. Iran’s ambitions have nothing to do with what is the correct course of action for the two countries with the largest nuclear arsenals; even if the U.S. cut back its arsenal by 90%, it would retain the capacity to destroy all of its enemies if it came to that. And he hasn’t been at all ambiguous on Iran: he’s stated that its acquiring a nuclear weapon is unacceptable (although I don’t think his stance is going to change the fact that Iran will probably a nuclear weapon in the foreseeable future, and that the sky will not fall), and is pushing for sanctions to dissuade Iran from continuing its current course of action. I’ll concede that this is one case where he could act effectively unilaterally, by authorizing military strikes against Iran. But he would be crazy to do that.
He let the IOC “roll” him? He can’t order its members to vote for his home city and have that order stick any more than he can order Max Baucus to insert a public option into the Finance Committee’s healthcare reform bill draft. Less so, really. As Prof. Lindgren noted a few days ago, if he hadn’t gone, conservatives would have jumped down his throat for phoning it in. He did his best, and then an independent body didn’t do what he would have preferred. What’s he supposed to do, nuke Rio?
As for Afghanistan, he has already made some significant decisions there, such as increasing troop levels well above where they were at the start of his term. All accounts indicate that he is currently mulling his next move, and the situation isn’t exactly critical. At some point in the next month, he is going to back or reject his general’s recommendations, and then you can bitch at him for the choice he actually made. For the interim, let’s savor the fact that we have a President who doesn’t make military commitments based on his gut feeling, but rather based on in-depth discussion within his Administration about the costs and benefits of all proposed courses of action. It’s a nice change.
October 4, 2009, 1:29 pmJoe says:
Since McClellan at Antietam, Generals have had strong disagreements with their President.
You need to reread your history. Generals and politicians have long had disagreements in all of history as well as American history. Even before the country was founded, Washington had extremely strong disagreements with the Continental Congress.
In fact, the very reason the founding fathers gave military control to civilians was the tendency for Generals to not only disagree with their leaders, but to act on those disagreements.
October 4, 2009, 1:37 pmSG says:
You can be a good leader driving things in a poor direction and you could be a poor leader and have events turn out favorably. Leadership and outcome are not synonymous (and the latter is highly subjective). If it’s your opinion that Obama has demonstrated good leadership skills, and not simply that you agree with the direction events have gone, then we’ll simply have to agree to disagree.
October 4, 2009, 1:37 pmSarcastro says:
1. I have heard that Disagree and Defy have subtly different meanings, but I was never one for nuance.
2. Borris really needs to use “straight up” before racism.
October 4, 2009, 1:45 pmSG says:
I have heard that Disagree and Defy have subtly different meanings, but I was never one for nuance
Ain’t that the truth. You’re so busy attempting to be sarcastic that you don’t bother to consider if it even makes sense. Here’s a hint: not all disagreement is defiance, but all defiance is disagreement.
Now, which one happened here is a matter of debate, but even if it were defiance, I have no expectation Obama will act upon it because that would mean that he acted, as opposed to simply making noise.
October 4, 2009, 2:04 pmChrisTS says:
Both ‘leadership’ and the goodness of outcomes are open to dispute [or 'subjective,' if you like].
October 4, 2009, 2:30 pmIt’s worth noting that we could at least hope to have good leaders guiding affairs in a good direction.
One conception of good leadership focuses on the success of getting the good and desired outcomes more than on the appearance of being the Driver, particularly if the appearance might get in the way of achieving the outcomes.
Oren says:
Count me in continuing that. McC should say what he means and mean what he says. He reports, Obama decides.
October 4, 2009, 2:34 pmpmorem says:
It seems to me that there is a fundamental assumption that McChrystal is not acting in accordance with his orders.
I may be missing something, but I have not seen any evidence of this. Please provide cites if you have some.
That is, Obama may have given McChrystal permission or even ordered him to use a low key public sales approach for his strategic approach.
October 4, 2009, 2:36 pmSG says:
ChrisTS:
I don’t know that we disagree, and I certainly agree that one can be a good leader without needing to be visibly and unambiguously in charge.
But here’s a question for Obama defenders (and I don’t know if you consider yourself one): Does Obama desire victory in Afghanistan or does he want to withdraw from the theater? If he desires victory, what is his conception of victory?
I honestly don’t know the answer to these questions. I could make reasonable arguments for any possibly answer to them. I don’t know how you can credit Obama with even average leadership skills, at least on this issue, without unambiguous answers these very basic questions.
October 4, 2009, 2:53 pmBob from Ohio says:
McChrystal has a NATO command as well as a US command. It was a NATO conference. His speech was absolutely cleared by Washington. Senior generals do not make speeches without approval.
As pointed out above, the VP is not in the chain of command. Biden’s purported advice is not “policy” yet.
And the NSC strawman is just strange. When did McChrystal demand to attend the NSC meeting?
This is just team switching. If McChrystal made similar comments about Iraq in 2006, he would have been praised by Ackerman. (Many conservatives are no better, they are praising McChrystal for “nation building” aka “counter insurgency” that they didn’t care for not so long ago.)
If Gates and O think McChrystal is out of line, he will be replaced with little fuss as other generals in Afghanistan and Iraq have been.
October 4, 2009, 2:59 pmLou Gots says:
Another possibility is that Effendi Obama wishes McChrystal to speak out in favor of an Afghanistan surge, to cover himself with his own leftist base. Now he can say that he has considered all the options, listened carefully to the sage counsel of Vice President Biden [guffaw], but is going with the advice of the General on the ground.
October 4, 2009, 3:08 pmneurodoc says:
Weren’t the facts relevant to McChrystal out there before Obama approved him for command in Afghanistan?
October 4, 2009, 3:18 pmlonetown says:
As the leader of the least experienced admin we have ever seen, I would think he would accept sound advise no matter where it came from. With the possible exception of Joe Biden who should be wearing a safety helmet when he goes out.
October 4, 2009, 3:18 pmSG says:
pmorem, Lou Gots:
If your supposition is correct, then Obama is a far better president than I have given him credit for and I will happily admit to being grossly mistaken about him and his presidency.
October 4, 2009, 3:26 pmpmorem says:
SG,
That’s about where I’m at.
I hope he gets this one right (whatever that is), because the alternative is sinking into deep despair.
October 4, 2009, 3:58 pmArthurKirkland says:
Weren’t the facts relevant to McChrystal out there before Obama approved him for command in Afghanistan?
I do not know. I am not sure all of the relevant circumstances have been disclosed yet.
October 4, 2009, 4:04 pmRuss says:
“I hope to hear, in an appropriate forum, Gen. McChrystal’s opinion concerning how the United States got into the current clustermuck in Afghanistan.”
Let’s see…
Planes flying into buildings. Open sanctuary for the terrorists who plotted that. I wonder if that answers the question…
BTW, wasn’t Afghanistan supposed to be the “good war” during the campaign? Or was that rubbish designed to overlook that some folks didn’t have the stomach to do what it necessary to win?
October 4, 2009, 4:08 pmneurodoc says:
I presume you mean Obama, not yourself. And is Obama’s administration less experienced than that of James Earl Carter?
October 4, 2009, 4:24 pmSG says:
pmorem:
I agree with you, especially about your parenthetical ambiguity. Bush made a tremendous mistake in making democratization a victory condition, and Obama made an even larger mistake in trying to use Afghanistan to burnish his national security bona fides. Afghanistan is quite likely the worst place in the world to attempt to attempt impose America’s will.
October 4, 2009, 4:30 pmLaura S. says:
I don’t feel that has reached point of disagreeing with the civilian command. Biden is not a member of the executive, he’s the very arrogant ill-tempered president of the senate.
When Obama makes his decision, it will be McChrystal’s place to fall in line. In the meantime, the president is asking, “What do you think?”.
October 4, 2009, 5:33 pmBart DePalma says:
I would suggest the reverse is true. The Constitution grants the Vice President no position in the chain-of-command and no power whatsoever over the military. In sharp contrast, McChrystal is the theater commander appointed by the Commander-in-Chief and is only answerable to the CENTCOM commander, General Petreus, and then the President himself. McChrystal owes no deference whatsoever to the Vice President.
McChrystal has every right to lobby for his plan and every duty to lobby against the idiotic and completely political excuse for cutting and running being put forward by the estimable military strategist “You don’t mess with Joe” Biden.
If the President decides to cut and run under the rubric of an “anti-terror campiagn,” then McChrystal is duty bound to do one of two things: (1) salute and say “Yes sir!” or (2) resign his command rather than implement an order that will have meant his men had died in vain.
I would hope that McChrystal privately tells the President beforehand that he will choose Option 2.
October 4, 2009, 5:42 pmHarryEagar says:
lonetown sez:
‘As the leader of the least experienced admin we have ever seen.’
Not my take on it. I’d say the least experienced administration we ever saw was the one that left office on Jan. 20, 2008, having gone in knowing nothing and left learning nothing.
In any event, the Bush II administration either didn’t get or didn’t accept ‘sound advice,’ as we see from results.
Just being there isn’t the same thing as having experience.
October 4, 2009, 5:57 pmChrisTS says:
SG:
As I said, I think he wants ‘victory’-at least in the sense of getting Afghanistan out of the hole and, thus, keeping Pakistan from falling in the same hole. But, he is hearing from citizens and experts that adding troops is not the way to go. (And, yes, some folks just want us to bail entirely.) Further, he is seeing matters there getting worse. My guess is that, at this point, he is genuinely torn as to the best course of action.
Of course, he will have to make some decisions, but I am not all that upset when a President is careful about U.S. lives and money.
October 4, 2009, 6:05 pmBorris says:
I feel the love, Sarcasrtro ;)
October 4, 2009, 6:28 pmTim says:
Perhaps someone should inform them that the Vice President has no authority at all.
October 4, 2009, 6:59 pmRuss says:
“In any event, the Bush II administration either didn’t get or didn’t accept ’sound advice,’ as we see from results.”
Yup – that whole “surge” thing proposed by GEN Petraeus was thrown out the door the moment it was proposed. And it obviously led to nothing in Iraq…
October 4, 2009, 7:10 pmSimon Oliver Lockwood says:
General McChrystal’s chain-of-command goes as follows:
General Petraeus (as CENTCOM) & ADM Stavridis (as EUCOM/NATO)
Secretary of Defense Gates
President Obama
If his comments had been approved by any of the above people he is perfectly in the clear. Note that neither VP Biden nor National Security Advisor Jones are included in that list.
October 4, 2009, 7:31 pmSG says:
ChrisTS:
I hope that you are correct that Obama genuinely wants victory, but is torn as to how best to achieve it. I’m not convinced that’s true, but it’s certainly a reasonable interpretation of events so far.
October 4, 2009, 7:44 pmDave Hardy says:
The VP has no line authority over a commander in the field. His job description is to preside over the Senate (which he rarely does). He makes no decisions, can give no orders.
If MacArthur had publicly debated with Alben Barkley, I doubt much would have been made of it.
October 4, 2009, 8:04 pmArthurKirkland says:
“I hope to hear, in an appropriate forum, Gen. McChrystal’s opinion concerning how the United States got into the current clustermuck in Afghanistan.”
Let’s see…
Planes flying into buildings. Open sanctuary for the terrorists who plotted that. I wonder if that answers the question…
Only for those who wish to avoid the important question. The events of September 11 precipitated the entry, but do not begin to explain how we find ourselves mired in clustermuck more than five years after arrival.
October 4, 2009, 8:05 pmKantKnow says:
Since the president is required to be a natural born citizen and has offered no proof of such it would be up to Biden to fire the general.
October 4, 2009, 8:06 pmOren says:
It’s pretty impressive you can be snarky even when the man implements your preferred policy.
October 4, 2009, 8:09 pmOren says:
He has as much power as the President gives him, no more no less.
It’s not like our Secretary of State can actually sign treaties — only the President can. When she speaks, however, it’s assumed that she speaks for her boss.
October 4, 2009, 8:12 pmHarryEagar says:
Russ, is advice given 4 years too late really ‘sound’?
October 4, 2009, 8:51 pm“Lindsey Graham implies Obama is against the troops if reinforcements for Afghanistan are not sent. Where has Graham been?” and related posts - KuASha Organization says:
[...] Is McChrystal Another MacArthur? - The Volokh Conspiracy [...]
October 4, 2009, 9:04 pmjccamp says:
I think that Laura S and Bart D have it right.
There is a well-documented history of hard feelings between Biden and Karzai, and a suspicion that the VP has allowed his personal antipathy to influence his stance on Afghanistan, which has been somewhat out of step with the President’s for a year or two. So Biden’s comments do not necessarily conflate with an official government policy.
The CG of U S forces in-country certainly has the right to publicly comment on a suggested course of action, when that suggested course of action remains a mere proposal, and did not originate with the Commander in Chief.
And, again, I may be slave to my own preconceptions but I perceive a definite change of tone when the complained-of criticism is aimed at a more liberal Democrat instead of the Evil Bush. A serving general taking a stance contrary to a proposal originating within the last administration would have been canonized by the Post. And others. But instead, we see a Yale law professor essentially arguing that the military be muzzled from public comment (!) when that comment might differ from a liberal elected official. I just cannot imagine a Yale law professor arguing that a serving general be silenced from speaking out against a conservative Republican administration proposal. In that instance, there would certainly be nothing less than a Constitutional issue (permitting the speech) at stake somehow.
But I digress. McChrystal was hand-picked by the sitting President to guide strategy in Afghanistan. Seems like he’s just doing his job, at least until the same President makes a decision (and in effect preemps McChrystal’s right to further public comment).
October 4, 2009, 9:04 pmChrisTS says:
Oh, stop it, you two.
October 4, 2009, 9:10 pmChrisTS says:
SG:
You know, they say optimists live longer than pessimists. Or, perhaps it’s that optimists are happier while they live than pessimists. :-)
By the way, I hate the emoticons. I much preferred it when we could each present our own, idiosyncratic, keyboard interpretations of the emotions we wished to convey.
October 4, 2009, 9:14 pmChrisTS says:
Oh come on, Oren. You know Obama is Turkish. Or, whatever.
October 4, 2009, 9:17 pmhavana says:
There is a few things to keep in mind when understanding Gen. McChrystal’s action:
1. The DOD was/is dragging its feet.
2. The White House was ignoring Afganistan,
3. It looked as if Germany was going to pull out (after an airstrike by German forces killed many civilians. They just had an election).
4. Stories of attacks kept appearing and it looked as if Gen. McChrystal was f*** up.
5. Gen McChrystal comes from the Special Forces, so he takes no bulls*** and doesn’t mind stepping in other peoples toes when they are not doing their job.
6. Gen. McChrystal is in a Afganistan to WIN. (he is not there to drag his feet and take the blame)
So, the only way Gen. McChrystal had to get the President’s attention was to make a (weakly) public statement of his strategy.
And STILL the DOD is dragging its feet, the White House is buying time with “looking for alternatives”, and the President is not mentioning Afganistan.
Just recently he met with Gen. McChrystal for the 2nd time and spoke for 25 MINUTES with him.
—————————————————————
With regards to “Who is in Charge of Who”:
Yes the President is the Commander in Chief, the Joint Chiefs are on top of Gen. Petraeus, and Gen Patreus in on top of McChrystal. But Gen. McChrystal is dealing with the conflict directly, he understands better than anyone what the needs are and what should be done in Afganistan.
If you have trouble understanding how this works, here is an example: Gen. McChrystal is in charge, but he does not tell X platoon on Y mountain how to engage the Taliban in the middle of the firefight. He doesn’t tell the 2nd LT how ot engage because he knows that will get that entire platoon killed.
October 4, 2009, 10:41 pmmadawaskan says:
McCrystal was for Obama’s plan before Obama was against it, or Biden became against it and now Obama is not,or sorta could be for it.
PatHMV really you try being supportive of what you think Obama is or isn’t for-you can use anything he told the American people about Afghanistan to get elected.
What did the people of America think Obama’s ideas for Afghanistan were?
Here is another clue-McChrystal-wrote the COMISAF trying to appeal to what he thought the Obama Administration wanted-basically McChrystal is right in the sameboat as the electorate-he believed Obama’s campaign speeches-that simple.
To start questioning the honor of the General for answering questions in that same vein of thought that has been consistent, well documented and sourced-is to allow yourself to be used to triangulate the active duty military that believe in what they are doing.
So what you are hinting at is that he is being insubordinate and acting unconstitutionally to whisper campaigns of a sudden change of stategy that is coming from “unamed sources” or loosely and just recently attributed to Biden who came up with this idea when exactly?
After McChrystal’s report….
That’s some damn trap you’ve got McChrystal in but thanks for honoring his integrity -because we all know McCrystal is the liar or shape shifter not that politician Biden or anyone else in the Obama Cabal.
October 4, 2009, 11:54 pmFen says:
“If he is less than superb at his job — which, he should recall, is to execute the instructions of the commander in chief”
Subordinates are allowed to disagree with higher’s tactics, even tell them so, and still execute those tactics. Its very common.
“If he is indispensable, I hope he has been issued a three-inch leash.”
Fuck you, armchair warrior. You don’t rate to lick his boots.
October 5, 2009, 12:53 amArthurKirkland says:
Subordinates are allowed to disagree with higher’s tactics, even tell them so
Privately or publicly?
You don’t rate to lick his boots.
That remains to be seen. If Gen. McChrystal strayed into the political avenues regarding strategy in Afghanistan or the politically inspired lies and coverup regarding the death of Pat Tillman, he would rank relatively low on the order of bootlicking. Although one can not disregard the spectacular failures at the highest levels of civilian leadership, bad judgment — or worse, in the case of ideologically driven conduct — among people wearing uniforms has caused great misery and death in Iraq and Afghanistan, and is part of the reason the United States has fared so poorly in both countries for years. And the abuse of Pat Tillman’s memory (and the Tillman family) for political gain was about as tawdry as a human being could get.
October 5, 2009, 5:04 ammls says:
According to an article in the Telegraph, Obama is furious at McChrystal for giving the speech in London. [I am not sure that I have ever read about Obama being angry at anyone before, except maybe Reverend Wright after his National Press Club appearance]
The article also states: “Some commentators regarded the general’s London comments as verging on insubordination.
Bruce Ackerman, an expert on constitutional law at Yale University, said in the Washington Post: “As commanding general, McChrystal has no business making such public pronouncements.”
It seems to me that this illustrates how Ackerman is using his status as a constitutional law professor to comment on matters about which he has “no business” making public pronouncements. Ackerman isn’t an expert on military affairs, the chain of command, or insubordination. He is perfectly free to have whatever opinion he wants, but he shouldn’t pretend that it has anything to do with his area of expertise.
October 5, 2009, 5:40 ammikeyes says:
Come on guys, the Joint Chiefs are not in the chain of command. It goes CinC to SecDef to Central Command to Theatre Commander. So GEN McChrystal is fourth in line. Daily contact by the CinC with the theater commander would be micromanaging the war and we all know how that worked out in Viet Nam. There is no reason why the CinC should be meeting with him alone or at all. His reports are sent up the chain of command to the CinC.
Here is a question (OK, more than one)for all of you military experts: What is the goal in Afghanistan? Has it even been set yet? How do we assure our national security, by nation building, by killing all AQ members, by assuring women’s rights in the Middle East, or even by defeating the Taliban? Pulling out of Viet Nam had miminal consequenses for us overall and it didn’t seem to effect Russia that much when they pulled out. Do we need to send our young into harm’s way or can we do something else?
October 5, 2009, 8:11 amlonetown says:
Leaving my potential aside, I think Carter had more experience, of course. he was a businessman, a military leader and a govenor. Going through Carters crew vs Obama’s might be alot trickier.
October 5, 2009, 8:41 amWeekly Web Watch 09/28/09 – 10/4/09 « EXECUTIVE WATCH says:
[...] of the military. Jonathan Adler thinks that Ackerman (and Michael Cohen) worry too much; this is not disagreement with announced policy, but rather an attempt to influence the formation of a policy that McChrystal, presumably, has [...]
October 5, 2009, 12:28 pmBart DePalma says:
Simon Oliver Lockwood says:
Unless the President had granted the Sec Def or the NATO commander additional command authority, neither one has any authority over strategy.
The Sec Def is an administrative position and advisor to the President.
Afghanistan is outside NATO’s traditional geographical command area. It falls under CENTCOM. At most, Stavridis only has limited administrative authority over the NATO troops.
October 5, 2009, 1:33 pmS.T. says:
He said it in a foreign country, which would have been grounds for court martial under the Bush regime. He said he would not support what Obama might suggest, which would be insurrection. He is almost at the point of advocating a coup. He is dancing on the edge of treason with his comments in a speech in London and Bush would have fired him in a minute, and Obama should have. He takes orders from his Commander in Chief, and it’s irrelevant what he thinks of his Commander in Chief or his ideas. His job is to carry out what his Commander wants, period.
October 7, 2009, 2:55 am