Bruce Ackerman’s weekend Washington Post article criticizing General Stanley McChrystal was not the first time he has raised concerns about the involvement of currently serving military leaders in political debates about national security policy. In 2007, he wrote this article for the Financial Times criticizing comments by Major General Rick Lynch and President Bush’s use of General David Petraeus to deflect Congressional criticism of the Adminsitration’s policies in Iraq. These incidents, Ackerman warned, were threats to the principle of civilian control of the military.
I still think Professor Ackerman is overstating his case. I agree that it can be inappropriate for active military officers to criticize their superiors, particularly the commander-in-chief. And it’s possible that McChrystal’s comments crossed that line (though my understanding is that his speech had been approved). Remarks like those of Major General Lynch, had they been directed at the President (rather than a Senator), might even constitute insubordination. But I am not convinced that either Lynch’s or McChrystal’s comments “represent[ed] an assault on the principle of civilian control.” It seems to me that we all benefit if public debate over military policy to be informed by the opinions and analyses of military leaders, and I would be more concerned about an overly restrictive policy, in which only the President and his closest advisors could hear the views of top military brass, than the opposite.
If the President sets a given policy goal, I think Congress and the public at large should know what military leaders think is necessary to achieve that goal. So, for instance, if General McChrystal believes that current United States’ policy in Afghanistan would require particular measures — more troops, shifts in deployment, different rules of engagement, whatever — I think it’s a good thing if such information is public. This makes it easier for civilians to evaluate the choices on the table. I see this as less of a threat to civilian control as a way to ensure that military policy decisions are more transparent and our political leaders are more accountable. If the current military leadership believes we will not be able to achieve a given goal on the cheap — and our political leaders know this — shouldn’t the public know this as well? Perhaps this will result in a greater investment in achieving the given policy — such as sending more troops to Afghanistan. But it also seems possible that it could result in a reconsideration of the stated policy, and perhaps a reduction in U.S. involvement. That is, I don’t think this approach undermines civilian control in the military or makes our military policy decisions less responsive to public opinion. Indeed, I am inclined to think it could do the opposite. And insofar as it could “box in” the commander-in-chief, and make it more difficult to take certain actions, I am notsure why this is a bad thing.
Houston Lawyer says:
I agree that general officers and above should be encouraged to speak their minds. They can be ignored or replaced by the administration if it feels so compelled. An officer who is compelled to say only what the administration approves might as well quit and become a press secretary.
October 5, 2009, 8:23 amwfjag says:
Comparing Ackerman’s 2009 WaPo article with his 2007 Financial Times article, it is clear that consistency (foolish or otherwise) is not a hobglobbin of his little mind.
October 5, 2009, 8:40 amMikee says:
I recall Rumsfeld getting the runaround at the Pentagon when he asked what would be required to invade Iraq. The answer was something like 350,000 troops, who of course were not available, so gee, sorry, but the US military could not invade Iraq. Rumsfeld, having seen this type of military sidestep before, told them they were going with the army they had, not the one they wanted, and they went.
Clinton could only get the Air Force to bomb Serbia from >15,000 feet, and still lost an F-117!
I wonder if the current military command knows that the current civilian government is inept at military matters, and is trying to either win in Afghanistan by following a correct counterinsurgency strategy, or trying to get out by letting the progressives in control of the executive and legislative branches deny them the means to win.
October 5, 2009, 8:42 amzuch says:
We’re in the age of Birthers, Tenthers, & spineless Democrats. What could possibly go wrong?
Cheers,
October 5, 2009, 9:01 amFloridan says:
Military officers should be encouraged to “speak their mind” to their superiors (and their superiors, all the way up to the CINC should welcome this).
However, encouraging public discussion of dissenting opinions from the military is a slippery slope, and only a couple steps away from junior officers and NCOs speaking out in opposition to orders from above.
If a military officer feels morally compelled to speak out in dissent, he or she should be prepared to accept the consequences.
October 5, 2009, 9:01 amFederale says:
Did Ackerman get upset when that journalist fed a question to an Army Reserve or Guardsman in Iraq directed to Defense Secretary Rumsfeld that attacked Bush and Rumsfeld? I think not. He is just concerned that a Democrat is being criticized. Undoubtedly he also thinks it is racist for someone in the military to criticize Obama.
October 5, 2009, 9:40 amDavid Fernandes says:
Civilian control means you follow the orders, not that you agree with them. I realize there have to be limits for the military, but if we have a system in which a member of the military (or the military itself) is unable to raise concerns outside the chain of command, that produces its own problems. Indeed, my recollection is that a number of general officers (serving or retired) who only spoke up later about concerns about number of personnel in Afghanistan/Iraq, were criticized for not speaking up sooner. Contrariwise, Gen. Shinseki was essentially canned for telling the truth as he saw it before Congress (i.e. speaking in an official capacity).
As a U.S. citizen, I want some level of “whistleblowing” (using the term loosely) permitted by members of the military. Civilian elected politicians are the bosses of the military, but the people are the bosses of those politicians and in situations where we should know something, I don’t want some self-serving politician hiding the information to get re-elected.
October 5, 2009, 9:40 amPliny the elder says:
When I was last mobilized (last year) my immediate supervisor did tell me (in private) that not everyone in the Division appreciated my candor as much as he did. However, I think that disagreement is not disrespect and I want to know what the experts are thinking, even if in the end the civilian leadership makes other (considered) judgments.
October 5, 2009, 9:43 amSince I am deploying again next week, this is on my mind and I do have skin in the game.
madawaskan says:
Particularly if it makes the Commander in Chief stay true to the stated objectives to the Electorate.
Who is this Bruce Ackerman-I don’t know if I have the patience to go read his crap but what he is hinting at accusing McChrystal of is very serious stuff.
Why doesn’t he take a long look at the military officer swearing in process.
Trust me McChrystal is staying true to that.
Oh and if he wants to start going after Petraeus-well good luck with that.
Lots of people work in the Pentagon -the field grade have not one bad word to say about Petraeus-he is very well respected.
Going after Petraeus-I wouldn’t suggest that move at all.
October 5, 2009, 9:49 amtvk says:
Orin would observe the irony that the parties so conveniently switch sides after an election. We’ve had this before, but McChrystal is going further. Eric Shinseki did precisely what you are describing: putting forward his conception of the “necessary measures” to achieve the president’s stated objective. He promptly got fired, and I seem to remember many conservatives piling on. And unlike McChrystal who is affirmatively pushing his opinion, at least Shinseki was obliged to answer questions pushed upon him by Congress.
October 5, 2009, 9:49 amgeokstr says:
Forgot the Truthers. What a coincidence.
October 5, 2009, 10:29 amPubliusFL says:
Take care, and come home safe!
October 5, 2009, 11:09 amfirst history says:
McChyrstal is laying the groundwork for the right-wing media plot,which includes Rush Limbaugh to promote a military coup against the President.
It’s happened before:
Just kidding, of course.
October 5, 2009, 11:48 amThe Unbeliever says:
I think you brushed up against the root of the problem. It’s that a politicized military is an end state, it’s that modern political debates is overly reliant on experts–and their associated soundbites–in order to win arguments. Not necessarily an endless argument from authority fallacy, but it seems there is a tendency to pick an ideological position, then go looking for an expert, a study, a professor, or a former government official to support it.
The trend started roughly half a century ago, when academic studies in the social sciences were cited in support of policy positions. But when it comes to military policy, if you want to have the maximum gloss of authority, you really can’t get a “better” expert than someone currently serving. So the pressure for generals and officials to publicly offer their opinion, where it can be used to score points in the media, will only grow over time.
Which may make an apocyphal Civil War quote even more relevant today:
October 5, 2009, 11:51 amwfjag says:
Likely the best discussion of this matter, with links to other sites and their current positions that contradict prior positions (when there was a different administration and party in the WH) is at BlackFive, http://www.blackfive.net/ Ackerman is hardly the only one for whome that consistency (foolish or otherwise) is not a hobglobbin of his little mind.
Take care Pliny. Our prayers go with you for a safe return.
October 5, 2009, 11:52 amChrisTS says:
These were rather different cases. On the one hand, a reporter encourages a soldier to ask the SoD a question about equipment. On the other hand, a general gives a public speech that appears at odds with the CinC’s position.
October 5, 2009, 11:59 amChrisTS says:
wfjag:
Assuming I found the correct post, it is misleading (at best)insofar as it assumes parity between Shiseki’s forced testimony and McChrystal’s public speech.
October 5, 2009, 12:04 pmChrisTS says:
Pliny:
Take care and return soon.
October 5, 2009, 12:05 pmPersonFromPorlock says:
Military discipline may be somewhat overrated: both sides in a war have it, and half of them lose – sometimes because military discipline keeps people from telling their superiors “Hey, this is a really bad idea.”
October 5, 2009, 12:16 pmPubliusFL says:
Don’t count on that. Even to the extent that it’s true, there are degrees of discipline.
October 5, 2009, 12:22 pmSplunge says:
Yeah, well, who are those “civilians” who are supposed to control the military? Newsflash for Ackerman, it ain’t The One, the Dear Leader, Der Fuehrer, whatever.
It’s the people. Those are the civilians in question who are supposed to control the military. And speaking as one of those people, I for one am right glad to hear what the guy on the ground commanding the troops in Afghanistan thinks, when what he thinks is that the President’s (non)strategy may throw away eight years and a few thousand lives.
McChrystal hasn’t interfered with the “chain of command.” The President remains perfectly free to fire him, like Truman fired MacArthur.
But what Ackerman — and The One — know is that if Obama fired McChrystal, the chances are not bad that the “civilians” — we the people — would fire Obama’s croneys in Congress next year, and Obama himself two years later. That’s what really chaps their hide. Ha ha. Losers.
October 5, 2009, 12:42 pmBorris says:
Well according to The Left “The personal is political” [FN1].
If we have politicized schools, funerals, concerts, professional organizations (ABA, APA, etc.), product review organizations, and of course movies & TV, etc., it should come as no surprise that the military becomes politicized. The standard March Through Institutions.
After all this is why one party (cough cough) so often tries to get military absentee ballots disqualified.
[FN1] One of the main battle cries of 70s feminism.
October 5, 2009, 12:47 pmmadawaskan says:
ChrisTS-
On the other hand, a general gives a public speech that appears at odds with the CinC’s position.
Oh really-can you please find me a direct quote that Obama owns that tells you what his position is?
Thanks-take your time.
October 5, 2009, 1:14 pmmadawaskan says:
Just to add-
When the debates were held between McCain and Obama what do you think Obama presented as “his side”?
Do you think the American public got a chance to hear an open and honest debate on the subject?
October 5, 2009, 1:17 pmrarango says:
As a former professional officer, I submit General McC’s job is to provide his private counsel to the CINC, Chairman, SECDEF and POTUS (his chain of command). The ethos I was taught was you may debate in private, but once a decision is made you follow it–or resign first then criticize it.
A second point re Rick (GENERAL Eric) Shenseki and his tenure as Army Chief of Staff–if you check the tenure of Army Chief’s of Staff you will find Rick Shenseki’s tenure was pretty much the same as every other chief: approximately four years plus or minus a couple of months. He served his time out as Chief, and was not relieved. Now had his public disagreements come halfway through his tenure he MIGHT have been fired–but that was not the case.
October 5, 2009, 1:29 pmBart DePalma says:
rarango says:
I am also a former Army officer. A couple observations on your comment:
1) Gen. McC had no opportunity to provide counsel to the CINC because Obama was not speaking with him. Given all the press reports that the Administration politicos were deep sixing his report and recommendations, perhaps Gen. McC believed that a speech was the only way to communicate with his AWOL CINC. The blunt speech managed to gain the CINC’s attention and Gen. McC was granted a 25 minute meeting in Copenhagen.
2) Given that Obama refuses to make a decision on is Afghanistan strategy, there is no decision to which Gen. McC needs to defer.
October 5, 2009, 1:48 pmOren says:
It appears Gates isn’t too pleased.
October 5, 2009, 1:48 pmohwilleke says:
I’m not too concerned.
This is not a military officer doing an end run around a decision that has already been made by the administration, or contravening a specific gag order of the civilian leadership. This is also not a case of a military officer being involved in politics disconnected from the officer’s actual responsibilities.
At his level, which is at the top of the food chain, accomplishing his mission requires not just Presidential support, but Congressionally authorized resources. This requires the military to engage in politics. The only question is who should be doing that on the military’s behalf.
Similarly, no one doubts that Secretary Gates can assign a new military officer to that command without Congressional input, and reassign that military officer to a new task, if desired.
It is perhaps a risky gambit, but I don’t think it is anything approaching a constitutional crisis or threat to civilian authority.
October 5, 2009, 2:09 pmRuss says:
As a current military officer, I am paid to provide advice to my chain of command. GEN McChrystal isn’t politicizing anything b/c no decision has yet been made. Once that decision IS made, it’ll be incumbent on him to either accept it and carry it our as best he can or resign.
But we shouldn’t forget that it was our senior leadership’s failure to speak up in Vietnam that helped lead us to disaster in that debacle.
I am glad we have generals with brains. Anybody can follow an order, but we pay them to figure out the implications of that order as well.
October 5, 2009, 3:11 pmLance Eldridge says:
So there won’t be any confusion, I am a retired military officer that spent about half of his career in Washington DC (on both the Army and Joint Staff), working in various assignments that allowed me to see the “politics” of the military at work. Having written this…..
There is much to say on the military, professionalism, and politics. Like a couple of the other bloggers have written, if General S. McChrystal strongly disagrees with the President, he should resign before going public. Short of that, his position will always remain precarious with this President
General McChrystal would not be the first to try and remain on-the-job in an effort to argue his expert case before a willfully unknowing president. The most recent flurry of military leaders turning to public discourse (though I’m also not sure this is what happened in the current situation) started during the Clinton Administration when Colin Powell gave an interview to the press, without WH approval, in part as a response to then Secretary-of-State M. Albright’s rather public and ignorant comment about the use of the military. Nothing happened (at least publicly) to General Powell, in part because he had effectively established deep political connections on both sides if the aisle. In a sense his success has fostered an underground atmosphere to flourish where senior military leaders feel almost obligated to go public if the civilian leadership doesn’t follow their advice or, in the case of President Obama, has no clue about now to formulate national security strategy and use our power (both “soft” and “hard”) to protect and further our national interests.
The current President has no clue about the development of strategy and it has been most obvious with his waffling on Afghanistan. President Obama is probably more concerned about his rock-star image than in developing a coherent Afghanistan or, for that matter, a national or regional strategy outside of his personalized foreign policy.
Politicians have always been among the ranks of the most distrusted members of society, hovering at the bottom with journalists in a list that includes celebrities (a group politicians often confuse themselves with…just ask Gary Hart), lawyers (sorry…a group with members that often garble the distinctions between politics and justice), telemarketers, used car dealers, real estate agents, psychics, and atheists. In this culture of mistrust, politicians often and naturally view personal loyalty of subordinates as more important than professional competence. Politicians, with this self-admiring and cynical concept of loyalty, eschew a healthy and competitive relationship between themselves and their professional staff. As a professional working in this frustrating environment, resorting to acts of “disloyalty” by going public should be expected but probably not tolerated. The worse the politician the more often this will occur among professional and non-political staff members. Once they’re replaced by those with a more sympathetic outlook, the “leaks” will diminish but never disappear.
Professor David K. Hart, a one-time Alumni Professor at the Marriott School of Management at Brigham Young University, has rightly argued that the “power of the office …. obligates” the office holder to accept the “moral worth of the mission,” something that I believe is difficult for this President to accept, especially in the areas of strategy, the military and our eternal vital national interests. Given the President’s willingness to seek international popularity at the expense of our national interests, no one should really be surprised. However, because a President is so difficult to replace between elections, the only real check on his authority likely comes from the professional staff. In military matters this check would come from the professional, career military officers who work for and with the President – the same professional staff President Obama will likely try to cow over the coming months.
What happens next will be interesting. Nation building in Afghanistan is a dead letter. The government is corrupt and carries little to no influence outside Kabul. With tribal factions that promote divested loyalty, there’s no “nation” to build. So long as “nation building” remains a means to a silly end state, General McChrystal has no recourse other than to ask for more troops. By not accepting the inevitability of a disunited Afghanistan (there’s no “nation” and no legitimate, effective “state”) and focusing instead on our vital national interest (ensuring no base or safehaven for al Q and other terrorist organizations with a global reach) we will continue to founder, expending precious lives in an unnecessary war of attrition.
October 5, 2009, 3:26 pmChrisTS says:
Well, if the general was not appearing to disagree with the President, there really is nothing to talk about, here, is there?
October 5, 2009, 3:37 pmepignosis says:
You bring up a good point. If the speech was approved, then perhaps it was part of a larger strategy to gain public support.
Otherwise, it was a demonstration of moral courage. Troops show physical courage by doing their job while their very life is at risk.
A general shows moral courage by risking his job, when his troops’ lives are at risk.
October 5, 2009, 4:43 pmmadawaskan says:
Oren-
I’ll see your link-
Gates Stands by McChrystal at ABC’s The Note
Tonight:
Secretary Gates was asked about his comments earlier today, that military commanders and civilians advising the President on the strategy review should do so “candidly, but privately” and whether they were intended for Gen. McChrystal.
Gates replied, “Absolutely not,” and that McChrystal is exactly the right person for the job.
October 5, 2009, 6:31 pmlibertairansoldier says:
As a couple of other commenters have pointed out, this is a tempest in a teapot. The only policy the POTUS/CINC has issued is the one he put out in March. McChrystal’s comments did not contradict that policy; rather they were targeted at the ways to be followed–or not–and the means required to achieve the stated ends of the POTUS. These are the three elements of a strategy; and since POTUS has not decided one way or the other on which strategy to follow, the comments cannot possibly be taken as insubordinate.
October 5, 2009, 6:44 pmswimsaturn says:
I think JA makes a very good point: there is a big difference between vocally opposing current Administration policy, and vocally stating (or even complaining about) which resources are required for the military to purse Administration policy.
McChrystal is clearly doing the latter. He’s not saying, “we need to get out of Afghanistan because it’s a waste of time and we’ll never win”, rather, “if we want to win in Afghanistan [ie fulfill our policy goals], we need more troops and equipment”
I don’t know whether this constitutes “disagreement” with the president, because I frankly don’t know what Obama intends to do in Afghanistan…
October 6, 2009, 9:53 amswimsaturn says:
libertairansoldier beat me to it; didn’t see that post the first time through…
October 6, 2009, 9:54 ambailey says:
Russ makes a good point. The Truman and Lincoln stories are always trotted out to make a point about civilian control while the lessons learned about politics and the military learned during Viet Nam are forgotten.
October 6, 2009, 12:08 pm