In a recent speech in London, Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, the top United States commander in Afghanistan, was blunt. Calling the military situation there "deteriorating," he warned that the United States was going to have to "do things dramatically and even uncomfortably differently." General McChrystal had already submitted a report, somehow leaked, requesting an additional 40,000 American troops. He acknowledged in his speech that in so speaking out while the issue was still under debate in the White House, he might have difficulties with his superiors. Comparisons have been made between this situation and the unfortunate instance in 2003 when the Army chief of staff, Gen. Eric K. Shinseki, was punished for advising Congress of the enormous effort it would take to defeat and pacify Iraq in any meaningful way. General Shinseki was not removed outright, but he was treated shabbily by the Bush administration in more subtle ways until his retirement later that year. But the two cases were different. General Shinseki was testifying under oath before Congress; General McChrystal was speaking voluntarily, on his own.
As a former Army officer, I tend to be sympathetic to the generals who are placed in impossible situations, created partly by the framers of the Constitution in 1787. They designated the president as the commander in chief, but at the same time they gave Congress the power to raise and support armies and navies. This division of authority between two branches of government puts the head of a military service in an untenable position. Officers owe their loyalty to the president and have an obligation to resign if they are unable to carry out the commander in chief's policies. At the same time, they must sometimes testify under oath to the Congress. Trapped in this way, most officers elect wisely to keep their public opinions vague...
More at The New York Times.
Comments
And here's how it looked back in 2007, according to Paul Yingling in "A Failure in Generalship":
"Generals must provide policymakers and the public with a correct estimation of strategic probabilities. The general is responsible for estimating the likelihood of success in applying force to achieve the aims of policy. The general describes both the means necessary for the successful prosecution of war and the ways in which the nation will employ those means. If the policymaker desires ends for which the means he provides are insufficient, the general is responsible for advising the statesman of the incongruence. The statesman must then scale back the ends of policy or mobilize popular passions to provide greater means. If the general remains silent while the statesman commits a nation to war with insufficient means, he shares culpability for the results.
"...After visualizing the conditions of future combat, the general is responsible for explaining to civilian policymakers the demands of future combat and the risks entailed in failing to meet those demands. Civilian policymakers have neither the expertise nor the inclination to think deeply about strategic probabilities in the distant future. Policymakers, especially elected representatives, face powerful incentives to focus on near-term challenges of immediate concern to the public. Generating military capability is the labor of decades. If the general waits until the public and the elected representatives are immediately concerned with national security threats before finding his voice, he has waited too long. The general who speaks too loudly of preparing for war while the nation is at peace places at risk his position and status. However, the general who speaks too softly places at risk the security of his country."
Also interesting to remember how we saw things in Iraq in 2007.
And here's how it looked back in 2007, according to Paul Yingling in "A Failure in Generalship":
"Generals must provide policymakers and the public with a correct estimation of strategic probabilities. The general is responsible for estimating the likelihood of success in applying force to achieve the aims of policy. The general describes both the means necessary for the successful prosecution of war and the ways in which the nation will employ those means. If the policymaker desires ends for which the means he provides are insufficient, the general is responsible for advising the statesman of the incongruence. The statesman must then scale back the ends of policy or mobilize popular passions to provide greater means. If the general remains silent while the statesman commits a nation to war with insufficient means, he shares culpability for the results.
"...After visualizing the conditions of future combat, the general is responsible for explaining to civilian policymakers the demands of future combat and the risks entailed in failing to meet those demands. Civilian policymakers have neither the expertise nor the inclination to think deeply about strategic probabilities in the distant future. Policymakers, especially elected representatives, face powerful incentives to focus on near-term challenges of immediate concern to the public. Generating military capability is the labor of decades. If the general waits until the public and the elected representatives are immediately concerned with national security threats before finding his voice, he has waited too long. The general who speaks too loudly of preparing for war while the nation is at peace places at risk his position and status. However, the general who speaks too softly places at risk the security of his country."
Also interesting to remember how we saw things in Iraq in 2007.
The General is what we called an operator, and as such it would be surprising if he was less than direct... even for a general.
During the course of the Vietnam war there were entirely too many senior officers who failed to be what this General has been... honest and objective. Any time the job owns you and not the other way round you are under pressure to compromise principles. An officer owes his troops honesty... period.
The "shut up and follow orders thing" is a requirement in a fire fight, less so when the organization puts one in a policy level role and then sticks you out in public to voice your opinion.
I think Guardiano is correct. What if McChrystal hadn't spoken up, and the situation became disasterous? He'd be blamed for NOT speaking up. We can't have it both ways. We blame the generals when they don't speak up, and we blame them when they do....depending, it seems, on party affiliation.
The military is trusted by the people because it doesn't get it's hands dirty in the political realm, and that "rule" remains intact. No general is obligated to cover for, or strengthen the domestic political position of any elected official. He's only obligated to do what he thinks is best for the mission -- as articulated by the CinC -- and the young men and women we put in harm's way for our own defense, damn the domestic partisan fallout.
I don't think anyone has acted in a way that suggests they don't think Obama as their commander. Quite the opposite. McChrystal is doggedly pursuing the goal as set forth by his commander. It is in the course of doing Obama's bidding that McChrystal made his recommendations. Further, differentiating between "recommendation" and "advocacy" is splitting hairs. Where's that line? He's supposed to advocate what will most likely bring victory, regardless of the domestic political consequences.
The buck stops with Obama. It's ultimately his decision which way to go. There's far too much finger-pointing and analysis-paralysis here. There's an unfocused, scatter-shot approach to this decision process. The CinC bears the responsibility to make his decision, and in the end, own it.
Mr. Keller, Sir --
Thanks for your comment, but I'll confess that I don't understand what you've written! Perhaps you could write less cryptically and more clearly? Please? :)
Again, it's not simply a question of a military officer's right to speak publicly; it's also a question of his responsibility to do so.
In the case of General McChrystal, he is responsible for sending young men and women into harm's way, on missions that could well result in their death. There are, remember, some 68,000 U.S. soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines currently serving in Afghanistan.
General McChrystal has an obligation to these young men and women. He has an obligation to ensure that he has given them every chance of success, and that he has done everything humanly possible to minimize their chances for failure. The chain of command, after all, is accountable to those who carry out its orders, often at great personal risk to themselves.
For these reasons, informing and educating the public is simply not an option; it is an obligation, a solemn obligation. The American people and their elected representatives, then, can make fully informed decisions. General McChrystal and the military, of course, will respect, salute and carry out those decisions -- irrespective of whether they think those decisions are wise or foolish.
That's how our system of democratic governance works; and that's why the military must speak out -- clearly and often, with substantive information that helps to inform crucial public-policy debates.
Here the people rule; and the military serves the people.
V/R
John R. Guardiano
"is well within his rights...(and responsibilities) to engage and inform the public. The burden of proof is on you to show or prove otherwise." Yes on his rights..but after that he becomes an advocate for blood and treasure. And a subset with sub-optimization potential to overall national security development. (A draw play so to speak.)
Accountability for investment decisions requires the prudent to have the burden remain with the one with the hand-outstretched or it easily becomes an plea of bias, self interest, ego or ponzi no matter how the supplicant is dressed be it Class A or Speckled Pajamas with ugg boots.
Al,
Of course the president is the commander-in-chief. And of course military personnel must follow his (lawful) orders. But you still dont explain how this possibly means that military officers (commissioned or non-commissioned) must remain publicly mute.
The implicit assumption in your comment is that General McChrystal somehow has violated a (lawful) order. He has done no such thing, and you ought not suggest that he has.
Because the United States is a constitutional republic in which the people are the ultimate rulers, military personnel, I think, have a solemn obligation to engage and inform the public.
Indeed, I argue, "a military leader like General McChrystal strengthens the chain of command when he informs and educates the public to which the chain of command is ultimately responsible. That's because the chain of command and the public both require good, accurate and substantive information upon which to base their decisions."
Moreover, to require military officials to remain mute is ultimately counterproductive, because it stymies development of an educated and professional military. Yet, an educated and professional military is one of our defining characteristics and one of our key asymmetric advantages. That is why there is no standing order requiring that U.S. military leaders refrain from engaging the public dialogue.
General McChrystal -- and any military leader or soldier actually -- is well within his rights (and responsibilities) to engage and inform the public. The burden of proof is on you to show or prove otherwise.
John R. Guardiano
Officers take an oath to "... accept such appointment and do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter, so help me God."
Article 2 Section 2 of the Constitution states: "The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States;"
The commander in chief of the military IS the president of the United States according to the document the officers of said military will "support", "bear true faith and allegiance to the same" to.
Hopefully this would be enough for them to realize that the President IS their commander. I am sure the UCMJ will explain why they have to follow the presidents orders.
Military Leaders Must Engage and Inform the Public
John D. Eisenhower laments (in the New York Times) that General Stanley A. McChrystal spoke publicly (at a professional military forum) about the situation in Afghanistan. "Officers owe their loyalty to the president... [and] most officers elect wisely to keep their public opinions vague," he writes.
In fact, U.S. military officers dont take a loyalty oath to the president nor to any elected official or political party. They (we) take an oath to the Constitution of the United States. This distinguishes us from most militaries past and present; and it is something we disregard at our great professional peril.
The U.S. military, after all, is held in extremely high regard by the American people because they view as separate from and transcending politics. To abandon political neutrality out of a mistaken belief that we must be "loyal" to a certain elected official or political party is to forfeit our hard-won professional honor and integrity.
What is most disconcerting, however, is that so many military officers -- and especially older and more senior and retired military officers -- seem to think that General McChrystal has some sort of professional obligation to keep quiet and to be publicly mute.
Indeed, as Defense Secretary Robert Gates put it: "It is imperative that all of us taking part in these deliberations, civilians and military alike, provide our best advice to the president, candidly but privately [emphasis added]."
With all due respect to Secretary Gates, I believe that he is seriously mistaken. Military officers, I argue in the American Spectator, have an obligation to "speak publicly and often about wartime requirements." We do this not to advocate particular policies -- which, of course, we should not do -- but rather to inform and educate the public.
This, I argue, "is exactly what General McChrystal has done, and he should be commended for thoughtfully engaging the public dialogue. The United States, after all, prides itself on having an educated and professional military. Thus, U.S. military leaders are not mere functionaries. They are not robotic automatons who mindlessly follow orders.
"U.S. military leaders follow orders, of course. But they also think, cogitate and analyze; partake in professional military forums; and write for professional military journals -- and we rightly expect this of them. The professionalization and education of the United States military is one of its defining characteristics, and thank goodness for that."
You can read the entire piece (argument) here.
http://spectator.org/archives/2009/10/07/free-general-mcchrystal
I welcome your thoughts on this important issue.
Timing and the environment of delivery are elements that any senior officer or public official need consider. McChrystal's timing of delivery during a period of strategy consideration changed it from a recommendation to an advocate's argument. When coupled with the environment of the back bench's barking for the next congressional campaign, it was further reduced to a chorus member's voice among many others - he became indistinguishable from Joe the Plumber, Sara Palin and other pretenders of entertainment or preacher value only.
That is the tragedy of a well intentioned voice too easily suckered into a draw play politically and militarily.
A soldier has a duty to speak honestly and provide their assessments to their commander. On any level. After providing that information they have a duty to follow orders that HOPEFULLY take into account the information provided.
No one in the military has the luxury of choosing their commander. Nor do they have the luxury of picking and choosing what orders they wish to obey.
"You don't have to like it, you just have to do it". If doing it is illegal you have the obligation to bring it up to your commander, and if that does not resolve it, seek legal channels.
If it is NOT illegal then you have a choice of doing it or accepting the consequences of not doing it.
Privates understand this or else... Why does it become more vague with increasing amounts of responsibility and rank?
General McChrystal demonstrated real courage to express his views against a politically driven agenda. Obviously the generals statements have political power but as a whole they seemed focused on tactical success. I commend the general for placing the mission above his own advancement. Make no mistake that he is now a target for those who wish a different outcome in Afghanistan.
Perhaps I’m picking at nits here, but I’ve always believed that a soldier’s loyalty should be to the nation, not to the individual who temporarily occupies the office of President. The soldier has a duty to comply with the orders of his superiors and if he cannot do so — when his duty is trumped by his loyalty — he must be prepared to absorb the legal and moral consequences. Loyalty is something that is earned, not something that may be demanded.
I don’t condemn Gen. McChrystal for his speech or for his answers to questions. As Seaworthy said, his trip and, by inference, his speech, were approved by a superior. Presumably, he had previously provided the same information to the President through the chain of command. If he had been ordered not to speak and had done so anyway, that would be a breech of his duty and would give rise to whatever penalty his superiors elected to impose. This case doesn’t appear to rise anywhere close to that level.
While I hesitate to ascribe bad motives to anyone, it strikes me that the people complaining most loudly about this are those who are most comfortable with making decisions that effect the lives of America’s sons and daughters behind closed doors where input can be more easily controlled and where the debate is between the privileged few.
It is my understanding McChrystal's speech had been cleared prior to visiting London, following CENTCOM's visit? It would seem the trouble begain at the question and answer period that followed.
From all I can glean, Gen. McChrystal strikes me as a direct and non-politcally motivated indivdiual, and his president got what he paid for.
"Someone" approved the General's trip to London. Perhaps an odd statement, but whomever knew McCrystal's personality should have foreseen the General would give direct and honest answers to any question.
I wouldn't go so far as to say the General was seen by someone to be used as a proxy, but surely vague opinions are not what General MChrystal is noted for?