William Galston, writing on TNR’s The Plank, argues Bruce Ackerman and others are wrong to suggest that General Stanley McChrystal’s public comments somehow threaten the principle of civilian control of the military.
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.
He notes further that the arguments for muzzling McChrystal are the same arguments used to justify the Bush Administration’s effort to silence General Eric Shinseki before the invasion of Iraq. Further, insofar as McChrystal’s comments put pressure on the President — pressure to either deploy more troops or redefine the mission in Afghanistan — Galston believes it’s a good thing, as it limits the President’s ability to “fudge” the decision.
Snack McSnarkerston says:
He has great judgment; just look at how he handled Pat Tillman’s Silver Star…
October 6, 2009, 4:34 pmPliny the elder says:
I INTENDED TO LET THIS TOPIC ALONE AFTER MY BRIEF POST YESTERDAY, BUT I CANNOT RESIST.
October 6, 2009, 4:39 pmWHY DOES ANY NON-MORON CARE WHAT ACKERMAN THINKS ABOUTH THIS SUBJECT? HE HAS NEVER BEEN A MILITARY OFFICER OR A CIVILIAN OFFICIAL. HE DOES NOT SEEM TO BE PROVIDING A LEGAL ANALYSIS AND EVEN IF HE WERE HIS LEGAL EXPERINCE IS MODEST AT BEST. MOREOVER, AS FAR AS I CAN TELL, THERE IS NO LEGAL ANALYSIS TO PERFORM: PRESIDENT OBAMA CAN FIRE ANY GENERAL AT ANY TIME FOR ANY REASON OR NO REASON. THOSE ON THE LEFT ARE PROBABLY CONCERNED THAT THE PRESIDENT CANNOT RISK THIS FOR OTHER (POLITICAL?) REASONS. THAT IS A FINE CONCERN, BUT IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH A UNIFORMED OFFICER VIOLATING ANY PRINCIPLE OF CIVILIAN CONTROL. PRESIDENTS ARE HIRED TO MAKE SUCH DECISIONS AND LIVE WITH THE POLITICAL CONSEQUENCES. ACKERMAN HAS NO MORE EXPERTISE ON THIS THAN RANDOM GUY AND WE SHOULD STOP ACTING AS IF HE DOES.
Anderson says:
He notes further that the arguments for muzzling McChrystal are the same arguments used to justify the Bush Administration’s effort to silence General Eric Shinseki before the invasion of Iraq.
I don’t think so. Shinseki was testifying before Congress and was duty-bound to answer honestly.
The objection to Shinseki’s treatment was that his superiors treated him with contempt, rather than heeding him. What’s been asked of McChrystal is that he air his views within the chain of command, rather than in public fora. No comparison to Shinseki.
A better comparison is with the junior officers (for the most part) who wrote op-eds expressing frustration with the Pentagon and their commanders after the Iraq occupation went south. But McChrystal’s rank and position make such speaking-out very different for him.
October 6, 2009, 4:43 pmPliny the elder says:
THE GENERAL’S MISHANDLING OF A SILVER STAR RECOMMENDATION IS A GOOD REASON TO NOT PROMOTE HIM. ITS RELEVANCE TO CIVILIAN CONTROL OF THE MILITARY IS NOT APPARENT. AT LEAST NOT TO ME.
October 6, 2009, 4:49 pmAnderson says:
(Pliny’s authentic Romanness really comes through with the all-caps, I must say. Though I would try “V” for “U.”)
I was just reading today, again, about the MacArthur-Korea debacle, and I agree with Pliny to a great extent. Truman’s and Acheson’s failure was a failure of courage, to call MacArthur on the carpet early rather than letting the man effectively set policy on the battlefield.
Things went wrong as early as the Wake Island conference. What in HELL was Truman doing, letting MacArthur drag him out that far, like they’re two sovereigns conferring at Tilsit? Why did Truman agree to meet one-on-one with MacArthur (again, Tilsit)? No wonder MacArthur’s innate egoism ran wild, with no one to check him.
If Obama thinks that he’s getting sass from McChrystal, then call the man home and make it clear that there are plenty of generals available in the United States Army. God knows, Lincoln and FDR were not afraid to fire generals.
October 6, 2009, 5:02 pmShertaugh says:
Bruce Ackerman has no more qualifications to speak about anything beyond the law than, say, David Brooks.
But Brooks plays a significant role in shaping opinions about pretty much everything he writes about.
But I don’t think I’ve ever read anyone say that DB is pretty much like Joe Schmoe.
October 6, 2009, 5:13 pmSnack McSnarkerston says:
Easy on the caps lock sir… His misdirection on the Silver Star begs the question about his ‘press release’. What is he really trying to get here? A little face time with the press or more troops? He has clearly demonstrated that he would mislead people in one action while sending out a memo directly counter to the assertion on the Silver Star. How is that not even a little relevant?
But to your first point, I am in agreement with you.
October 6, 2009, 5:16 pmtamerlane says:
McChrystal has a right to speak out in public about his military concerns and Obama has the right to ask for McChrystal’s retirement if he doesn’t like what his general is saying. There are just two problems for Obama: (1) McChrystal has balls and our current President is a eunuch. (2) McChrystal is experienced, knows what he’s talking about and can make executive decisions while Obama is still an executive trainee, has the democrat politician’s usual, cultivated ignorance of military matters, and is expert only at reading meaningfully from teleprompters and dithering. I’d put my money on McChrystal.
October 6, 2009, 5:43 pmChrisTS says:
Bruce Ackerman is a [chaired] law professor. Bill Galston is a political theorist [and former Clinton adviser].
If you agree with the views of one of them on this issue, you agree with his views. To presume or assume that the person with whom you agree on this issue is, de facto, the greater authority is silly.
October 6, 2009, 6:29 pmSteve says:
What would the military’s perspective be regarding, say, a colonel who publicly opines that the generals are pursuing the wrong strategy? Is that okay, provided that they follow orders?
October 6, 2009, 7:01 pmDave N says:
Steve,
I’m not sure, though my understanding is that General McCrystal’s speech was cleared by those above him in the chain-of-command, something unlikely with your hypothetical colonel.
Heck, McCrystal’s speech was a variation on what the President himself had said just a few months previously.
October 6, 2009, 7:05 pmSteve says:
Well, if “those above him in the chain-of-command” had given the speech instead, the same question would be presented.
So let’s postulate, instead, a colonel publicly opines that the commanding generals are pursuing the wrong strategy, with permission from someone between himself and the generals in the chain of command. What is the military’s likely reaction?
October 6, 2009, 7:26 pmDave N says:
Steve,
Is your hypothetical colonel expressing the views the commanding generals were expressing only a few months before (prior to MoveOn deciding that the war wasn’t worth fighting)?
October 6, 2009, 7:35 pmRuss says:
Steve,
As an officer in the military, I can tell you we’re are constantly told “Stay in your lane.” The problem with those arguing against GEN McChrystal is that it emphatically IS his lane.
A COL who argues this might be in the right if he were sent out to do so by the Theater Commander as part of his staff(possibly in the J5). Even a Brigade Commander speaking solely about his sector would be justified in saying what is needed to succeed in his area. Some random COL from DC or stationed in CONUS, however, would be out on the edge.
But GEN McChrystal is the current Theater Commander and his lane is what it would take to succeed in Afghanistan. He didn’t advocate a course of action – he laid out the likely outcomes of a number of options. That a couple of the options – reducing from counterinsurgency to counterterror, not adding Soldiers – would likely lead to Taliban resurgence and dominance, and politicians find themselves in a bind either way, is not his problem. The Right will pillory the President for not committing enough and allowing defeat, while the Left will pillory him for not withdrawing and wasting lives. It’s the political climate that makes the choices uncomfortable, not the fact that the guy on the ground whose job it is to succeed laid out those consequences.
I have no doubt that GEN McChrystal will rigorously pursue whichever option the President decides on, but that’s part of the point – no decision has yet been made. If GEN McChrystal comes out after the decision and bashes it, then a MacArthur comparison is valid. Until then, I think some who wish this war would quietly go away are appalled that the end state they desire might not be in line with the military recommendation, especially if the public comes back to blame those same politicains a few years later. Quite simply, the recommendation on what it would take to succeed strips the politicians of cover if things go poorly, and they know more people value the military’s judgment, rightly or wrongly, than value the judgment of politicians.
October 6, 2009, 7:56 pmSG says:
The only way McChrystal is in the wrong is if you assume that Obama has been consistently lying about his intentions in Afghanistan.
It does seem that that’s what those of the more liberal persuasion seem to believe. Why they feel this would reflect worse on McChrystal than Obama would make for an interesting discussion.
October 6, 2009, 8:13 pmmls says:
What Pliny the Elder said is the point I was trying to make in earlier threads. In response to ChrisTS, the problem isn’t simply that Ackerman lacks any expertise or authority, its that he is trying to frame the issue as one on which he does have (presumed) authority, namely constitutional law. There may be an issue of judgment or military protocol, but there is simply no legal or constitutional issue.
October 6, 2009, 9:02 pmgab says:
Russ says, “… more people value the military’s judgment, rightly or wrongly, than value the judgment of politicians.”
Here’s what wiki says about the honorable General. “McChrystal’s Zarqawi unit, Task Force 6-26, became well-known for its interrogation methods, particularly at Camp Nama, where it was accused of abusing detainees.”
Here’s more. “McChrystal was also criticized for his role in the aftermath of the 2004 death by friendly fire of Ranger and former professional football player Pat Tillman. The day after approving a posthumous Silver Star citation for Tillman that included the phrase “in the line of devastating enemy fire”, McChrystal sent an urgent memo warning senior government officials not to quote the citation in public speeches because it “might cause public embarrassment” if Tillman had in fact been killed by friendly fire, as McChrystal suspected. McChrystal was one of eight officers recommended for discipline by a subsequent Pentagon investigation but the Army declined to take action against him.”
I certainly question his opinions.
October 6, 2009, 9:47 pmyankee says:
The two scenarios aren’t remotely the same. Shinseki was testifying before Congress about his professional opinion and was bound by oath to give his true opinion. Such testimony is a key part of the civilian control system in which the civilian Congress funds the military, regulates it, and authorizes the use of force by declaring war. If generals were only allowed to repeat the President’s party line in testimony before Congress, Congress’s ability to make decisions about the military would be greatly impaired.
By contrast, McChrystal offered gratuitous criticism to the public generally. He was under no obligation to provide his sincere opinion, or even to offer his opinion at all.
October 6, 2009, 10:16 pmRuss says:
Gab, please go back and re-read the quote. I didn’t single you out specifically as believing the military more than the politicians. Even I recognize that a large minority of the populace thinks we’re evil warmongers who rush headlong into a fight regardless of consequences and we relish the opportunity to screw others over. Even more, I recognize that, as human beings, we make mistakes like the next man. And as our responsibilities during war are correspondingly larger, the mistakes made will be magnified as well(as they should be).
However, whether you like it or not, poll after poll after poll shows that the public at large trusts the judgment of the military, especially in matters relating to military strategy, much more than that of our politicians.
I still think the hulabaloo is all about stripping political cover from folks who don’t want to buck the general’s recommendations and get skewered by the public when the result he is predicting actually occurs. This way, when/if it goes wrong, they’ll have to answer charges from the Right that they messed it up in some way by exercising different judgment than the field commander. They’re already getting heat from their base about staying in what they said was “the right war.”
However, as Colin Powell once said, “Being responsible sometimes means pissing people off.” Leaders make a decision and accept responsibility for it, good or bad. We could pull out and resort to counterterror, and possibly the Taliban don’t come back and GEN McChrystal was wrong, at which point the politicians get all the credit for being brave enough to go with what they thought to be right. Or we could go all the way in and get slaughtered, at which point the general’s advice was obviously flawed. But a decision needs to be made one way or another. And until a decision is made, it’s garbage to say that GEN McChrystal is flouting the system.
October 6, 2009, 10:26 pmPerseus says:
As a political theorist (and a former student of Bloom’s), Galston is the greater authority ipso facto.
October 6, 2009, 10:29 pmFlashman says:
It is becoming increasingly apparent that those in the White House don’t understand military culture. Neither does Atkinson nor, for that matter, Galston. The President likely represents the most naive of a progressive liberal movement that eschews, vilifies, and denigrates all things military.
Eugene Robinson writes that the “Generals need to shut up and salute.” The trouble is, when some of those writing and pontificating on the issue have failed to serve in the military, they tend to grossly underestimate the intellectual capabilities (and political savvy) of our military leaders. In place of respect is a stereotypical expectation that military leaders are mere martinets and should treat their political leaders with awe. That won’t happen. Respect, yes. Blind obedience, no. These officers don’t pledge their loyalty to a person or political party. They pledge to “support and defend the constitution.” General McChrystal expressed his view when asked. If the President doesn’t like his candor, he can remove him since the General serves at the pleasure of the President.
However, the debate’s on-going and the General’s remarks support what appears to have been a previously articulated “strategy” that originated in the White House. Remember, wasn’t General McChrystal appointed as part of a newly announced WH strategy? Yet, the President has not clarified our regional vital national interests and has failed to develop and implement a coherent, supporting strategy. Until these are settled, General McChrystal has the duty and responsibility to put forward his best estimates on how to win the fight in Afghanistan without wasting US lives in the process. His request for additional troops has forced the issue. A decision is overdue and the President continues to grope in the dark about something that’s so alien to him he’s likely struggling to not only grasp the basic strategic concepts, but has not fully understood the enormity of the task at hand. Remember, during the presidential campaign his “strategy” was to escalate our troop presence in Afghanistan. This was never a “strategy” despite efforts to make it sound like one. Now, of course, things have changed. Until the President clarifies our vital interests and decides on a supporting strategy General McChrystal will remain caught in the middle and our soldiers and marines will continue to bear the cost.
October 7, 2009, 3:27 amConnecticut Lawyer says:
It seems to me that Ackerman misses the point completely. General McChrystal was speaking in support of the President’s announced policy of seeking victory in Afghanistan. President Obama announced that policy both during the campaign and earlier this year. All the general was doing was explaining what military tactics would be needed to accomplish the president’s policy. I fail to see how that threatens in any way, shape or form the principle of civilian control over the military. The fact that Vice President Biden and others in the White House are seeking a change in the president’s policy is irrelevant.
October 7, 2009, 6:39 amgirlyassmusic.com » “Robert Naiman: Is Team Obama Really Rethinking Afghanistan?” and related posts - 135th Edition says:
[...] Galston on McChrystal - The Volokh Conspiracy [...]
October 7, 2009, 9:09 ampot meet kettle says:
as somebody who strongly felt shinseki was unfairly muzzled and wrongly fired, i am all for chrystal expressing his views in public. unfortunately, i don’t think the information coming out of afghanistan makes any of the options a winner; it is going to be a matter of what is the least bad option.
October 7, 2009, 11:17 amSteve says:
Thanks for your comments, Russ. I personally don’t feel that McChrystal was out of line, but it surprised me to see pro-military folks like Robert Gates and Jim Webb suggest that maybe he had done something wrong after all.
October 7, 2009, 11:47 amDotar Sojat says:
As one of the huge number posting here who undoubtedly have many years of military experience, I’ll second Flashman. The General is doing his job, and there is nothing untowards, unbecoming or otherwise out of line in his conduct. REMFs like Ackerman are out of their league here.
October 7, 2009, 12:27 pmDale Gribble says:
Ill go with that. If the President and his chain of command ordered the general not to comment, so be it. Also Army regulations or standing orders can guide active military officers what to say. If the White House has not even decided on a strategy I dont see how his comments show insubordination
October 7, 2009, 2:06 pmSagar says:
Gen McChrystal’s London address was supposedly ‘cleared’ by Pentagon or Whitehouse. In answering some followup questions, he pretty much spoke his mind (which by the way sounded similar
to what Obama has said repeatedly). So, what did the General
do wrong that these dicks have their knives out for him?
As of yesterday, Obama’s position is the same as what the
October 7, 2009, 5:02 pmGeneral said (and the president opposed Biden’s strategy –
if you can call Biden’s stuff a strategy!)
Flashman says:
One other item to contemplate. General (Ret) Jones, as the President’s National Security Advisor, did something similar to General McChrystal after he, Jones, accepted the WH job. Last May General (Ret) Jones spoke candidly to Karen DeYoung of the WP. He discussed the generational differences between himself and the Obamaites at the NSC, which includes the now-departed Mark Lippert, the thirty-something Stanford educated foreign policy advisor who came late to the military game, getting his commission only after he established his political credentials. Lippert, of course, was one of the cadre that accompanied Jones to the WH for briefings, a tag-along approach that made him (Lippert) look more like a political minder than a member of the retired General’s staff. One could surmise that the slight public disagreement that the WP article represented could have contributed to Jones’ efforts to a) reinforce his own position inside the WH and, b) serve as a gentle shot across the President’s bow that he, Jones, is the NSC Chairman and not those with long-standing personal and political relations to the President. The WH needs General (Ret) Jones, especially now.
All this suggests that the President’s political advisors has been talking about Afghanistan strategy for some time but may have failed to arrive at any coherent recommendations as to the best course of action. The President has avoided Afghanistan. He rarely uses the personal pronouns he’s become so (in)famous for using when it comes to national security policy….all of a sudden there’s a “team” working on the issue and he appears to distance himself from the process. I suspect that both General’s comments to the press to be a public nudge to try and get something out of what may be a dysfunctional national security team and serve as a subtle reminder to Obama that he is, after all, the President.
As for Lippert? Obviously a bright, talented young man that has, according to some reports, “returned” to his military career. Lippert may represent the political officer with closer ties to the elected officials than to his service. No matter how talented, I’d have second thoughts about having him on my staff or, for that matter, working with him. I had an early experience with a young Army Captain with similar WH credentials. He was difficult to talk to and had no problem contacting his former boss, a National Security Advisor, to act as his broker when he thought the Army wasn’t giving him the jobs he so richly deserved. I don’t know what happened to him, but I doubt remaining in the military was the route he chose.
October 7, 2009, 6:06 pmpot meet kettle says:
I hope Chrystal continues to embrace his newfound spirit of openness to talk about his instrumental role in the Pat Tillman coverup.
October 8, 2009, 2:14 pm“A Miserable 8th Anniversary Of Fruitless War In Afghanistan– How Obama Plans To Keep Funding It” and related posts « Twitter says:
[...] Galston on McChrystal - The Volokh Conspiracy See all 199 blogs. October 7th, 2009 | Category: Uncategorized [...]
November 7, 2009, 9:55 am