"What to do about Gen. McChrystal" seems to be the question on everybody's lips today. Should he be fired, or not? Or something in between, like a public emasculation? It's a tough call for Obama, one that really depends on what he decides is at stake here.
First, I read the remarks McChrystal made in The Rolling Stone and was amazed that such a tempest could arise in the first place. I see a military stereotype who may be effective in his calling; who reflects the biases the professional military often exhibits toward civilians, especially those who are their bosses; and, who possesses so little understanding of the civilian political world that he would make such statements knowing they'd become public. But I did NOT see Douglas MacArthur, directly and publicly challenging the decisions of the country's civilian leaders. The current general-in-the-spotlight may have doubts about policy, but he didn't express them in this interview.
So I'm not entirely persuaded by those like Jonathan Capehart, who says McChrystal must go; nor am I much swayed by Jackson Diehl, who argues he must stay because he's essential to the conduct of the war. Neither is entirely true. The general is replaceable without noticeable harm to the war in Afghanistan (Diehl exhibits his naivete in suggesting that war is "winnable" in the classic sense anyway); but his transgressions aren't the stuff of insubordination, either.
A President's response to this kind of situation will depend a lot on personality. The irascible Harry Truman would probably already have canned him; Jimmy Carter might keep him on and hold a prayer session with him. Obama is somewhere in between, but I think most observers would agree confrontation is not his style (if it were, he'd be a general). Firing is unlikely, but a dressing-down, public or private, seems not only likely but essential . Under these circumstances too, Obama will need to ride herd on "his" general a little more tightly.
Ultimately, McChrystal is in my view emblematic of what's wrong with today's military (or, if you will, what our civilian government decisions have turned it into). In airing his petty insults publicly, McChrystal demonstrated that he doesn't really understand the relationship between our civilian and military leadership. A general without that understanding could never have been promoted to McChrystal's level in the brown-boot army of WWII. Professionalism is to be admired, but it leads to isolation, self-cloning, and a skewed perception of the world. Our best military heroes have always provided their best advice, but worked within the decisions made and parameters set by civilian authority.
The fact is that McChrystal isn't necessarily entitled to the expression of any opinion about war strategy; his job is to execute it. But the abolition of conscription, and the tendency of Presidents and Congress to turn to more and more to military men for their political opinions, has led us astray. It's yet another situation we need to deal with, but we're unlikely to do so in the midst of an ongoing military engagement. If Obama, the Constitutional lawyer, chooses to tackle it now, my "personality" argument may not win the day, for constitutionally, Obama could only make this point by firing Stanley McChrystal -- just because he can.
Comments