Posted By Kori Schake
Tuesday, October 6, 2009 - 5:45 PM
Share
By Kori Schake
The release of Gen. Stanley McChrystal's report on the war in Afghanistan has occasioned full-throated cries of insubordination from the president's liberal supporters. The most ignorant and offensive of these is Eugene Robinson's belief that the military "need to shut up and salute."
Let's leave aside that liberal commentators showed no such compunction when the Bush administration was being criticized by the military -- including both active-duty servicemen like Army Chief of Staff Eric Shinseki and retired servicemen like Lt. Gen. Greg Newbold -- for its conduct of the Iraq war and for Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld's disrespect of their views.
Then, dissent was patriotic. Now, evidently, our military is not to be afforded views on the war they are fighting.
But shutting up the generals would be a terrible mistake, one much more hurtful to the Obama administration than to the military. Here are the main reasons the administration should not take the counsel of its supporters and silence the dissent being vented by our military.
They're more popular than he is. The American military is the most respected institution in these United States, with 82% of the public expressing high confidence, routinely outpacing all other institutions in American life -- to include the presidency (51%), the Supreme Court (39%) and Congress (17%). They're likely to win this one in the eyes of the American people, and that can't be good for the president.
They want to support him. After President Bill Clinton commenced his administration with the ill-fated executive order on homosexuals serving openly in the military, Secretary of Defense Les Aspin wrote him a terrific memo about how to repair relations with the military. The fundamental point was that the military is a winnable constituency for any president. They want him to succeed. Treating them like they're the enemy will offend their professionalism.
They understand the difference between policymaking and execution. It's their job to salute and carry out orders once the president gives them, but that does not proscribe them from influencing policy in the making. Go back and read the transcript of Gen. Colin Powell's lecture at the National Defense University during the "gays in the military" imbroglio for a poignant reminder of how well they get it. It will be a better policy if the president takes account of their concerns.
They know more about war than you do. Less than 1% of Americans serve in the military, and few of our political elites have any experience of the military. Those who are serving or have served do actually know more about the theory and practice of warfare than those of us who have not. They've risked their lives to acquire the knowledge, and deserve us giving deference to their judgment on what it takes to fight and win the nation's wars.
He was persuading allies to remain committed to the fight. President Obama is not General McChrystal's only boss. As the NATO commander, he works for all the governments with forces committed to the mission in Afghanistan. In his comments in London, McChrystal was defending the strategy President Obama asked allies to commit to, and for which their forces are risking their lives. He was helping make the case for the war to skeptical European publics; surely the White House does not want to do all that heavy lifting itself?
Ask yourself why it leaked. Internal government documents like the McChrystal report on Afghanistan tend to be leaked in one of three circumstances: (1) someone who cares desperately about the policy believes an administration is about to make a catastrophic mistake; (2) someone involved in policy formation believes their point of view isn't getting a fair hearing; or (3) someone wants to force the administration to publicly defend its choices. The latter usually occurs when, say, the national security advisor tries to intimidate military commanders into politicizing their advice. Or when the president curries favor with the military by telling the Veterans of Foreign Wars he's all in, then a month later getting cold feet when the bill for achieving his objectives comes due. Whichever of these factors drove this leak, the administration should take it as a canary in a coal mine they aren't building consensus within the government, either for their process or their preferred course of action.
You get the military leadership you deserve. If you penalize military leaders who give you unwelcome advice, they'll stop giving you their best judgment. They'll either fall silent, (as then Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Richard Myers did in the run up to the Iraq war), or they'll retire (as Lt. Gen. Newbold did in the run up to the Iraq war and Gen. Ron Fogleman did after the commander of the Khobar Towers facility in Saudi Arabia at the time of the bombing was later denied promotion), or they'll go through the motions of what you've asked and achieve little (as Gen. George W. Casey, now Army chief of staff, did when he was the top U.S. commander in Iraq). The president needs -- and should want -- military leaders who give their military judgment, which is all General McChrystal has done.
Secretary Gates judiciously suggested in his speech to the Association of the U.S. Army Monday that the president has a right to receive advice confidentially. He is serving the president well by trying to turn down the temperature on this civil-military imbroglio. People in the White House would also be wise to stop trying to silence the military -- or they won't like the military they end up with.
Photo: Pete Souza/White House
I suspect McChrystal's days are numbered in his current post, and probably rightly so.
On the other hand, it must be extremely frustrating for the military to have someone like Joe Biden, a person of such colossal ignorance that he has demonstrably gotten every major foreign policy decision wrong throughout his entire career, as a large, perhaps even crucial voice in this decision-making process.
Your title is misleading. No one is silencing the generals; only reminding everyone there is a chain-of-command.
There seems to be a precident for this: earlier under the Bush White House, fair hair general Petraeus seems to have been encouraged to do business behind his CENTCOM's back and beat the drum in public for his commander-in-chief.
Someone should have put a stop to this. It sets a bad example for future commanders like McChrystal. Who may have allowed his independent mind-set, something looked for in individuals with his special operations background, to run naively amok, having picked up a bad habit from Petraeus.
NONSENSE!
Is this for reconciliation or just the beginning? Well, why would someone need a cash advance on their next paycheck that didn't or couldn't go through normal avenues for financial assistance? A batch of reasons. It could be because of bad credit – and rest assured, bad credit cash advance lenders exist. A cash advance isn't nearly as hard to get as a bank loan, and isn't nearly as bad for you as using credit cards. Also, a lot of cash advance lenders have gone online, so you can get an online cash advance if you need financial assistance double quick time, and don't have time to find a loan store.
The Robinson piece decries criticism in public, not all criticism. Shinseki did no criticising in public. The most-discussed Shinseki communication is, of course, his response to Levin's questioning in a Senate hearing - a direct answer to a direct question from a member of congress.
If that's the best you can come up with, your suggestion of hypocrisy comes up short.
Actually, McChrystal has foolishly gotten off on the wrong foot with the Obama administration miscalculating that he could use his imagined prestige to elbow the President a little bit. He seemly thought it worked for Petraeus why not me. Fortunately, Gates and more importantly the NSC advisor Gen. Jones (besides being a four star is also a Marine which cuts a little more) has clearly reasserted civilian authority.
This is important, as because no matter the policy decided upon by the administration it must be a civilian authority decision not as a result of arm-twisting by the military. From Korea to our present wars in the Middle East the U. S, military high command does not have a stellar record in strategic assessment and advice. As Jack Kennedy said, “had I listened to them (the JCS) we would all be dead by now.”
.
You called Eugene Robinson's article in the Post http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/05/AR2009100502241.html "ignorant and offensive...." and gave it the misleading title of "shut-up and salute." I think you missed the rather balanced points in that article.....
(a) The opinion of the military is critical but should always be private NOT public when sensitive political questions are in play. No one wants to muzzle the military
(b)Regardless of what Mr. Robinson's personal views on a military question are, he maintains that he is against public participation of the military in political affairs---whether that military be American, British or wherever
(c)There is a clear separation of roles and responsibilities when it comes to crafting strategy and executing them.
You seem to come from the school of thought that feels that an airline CEO should face public dissent from the head of the pilots union just because the latter knows about flying and the CEO does not. If the question at hand is the right tyres to use, best speed to fly in turbulence or other tactical questions then any CEO (or president) foolish ennough to get into a position where the chief pilot has to take to the airwaves to drive home his points deserves what he gets. However, if the question is which routes to fly, crew levels per flight, right hedging price for jetfuel and how many landing slots to buy, the pilots opinion could still be very critical PRIVATELY. It is a testament to a CEO's calm temperament if he allows public dissent along strategic lines from line staff. Obama has given his man in Afghanistan a really long rope. I'll like to see anyone try that with Ronald Reagan or FDR.
following chain of command and protocol far from "muzzling"
Gates comments were appropriate and called for as were those of Security Adivsor James Jones (he served as Commander, United States European Command and Supreme Allied Commander Europe from 2003 to 2006 and as the 32nd Commandant of the Marine Corps from July 1999 to January 2003).
They both recognize (as does everyone at the Pentagon and DOD)McChrystal jumped the chain of command.
It is never a mistake to remind our generals that elected civilian leadership make policy and generals salute and carry out the mission to support that policy—not the other way round.b
following chain of command and protocol far from "muzzling"
Gates comments were appropriate and called for as were those of Security Adivsor James Jones (he served as Commander, United States European Command and Supreme Allied Commander Europe from 2003 to 2006 and as the 32nd Commandant of the Marine Corps from July 1999 to January 2003).
They both recognize (as does everyone at the Pentagon and DOD)McChrystal jumped the chain of command.
It is never a mistake to remind our generals that elected civilian leadership make policy and generals salute and carry out the mission to support that policy—not the other way round.
following chain of command and protocol far from "muzzling"
Gates comments were appropriate and called for as were those of Security Adivsor James Jones (he served as Commander, United States European Command and Supreme Allied Commander Europe from 2003 to 2006 and as the 32nd Commandant of the Marine Corps from July 1999 to January 2003).
They both recognize (as does everyone at the Pentagon and DOD)McChrystal jumped the chain of command.
It is never a mistake to remind our generals that elected civilian leadership make policy and generals salute and carry out the mission to support that policy—not the other way round.
Kori,
Certainly a diverse bunch of comments--sorry I didn't weigh in earlier. I disagree with your assertion that the leadership could be "muzzled" at least with any degree of efficiency or effectiveness. There are way too many factions out there (each with their own particular axe to grind) and way too many means of "sharing" the military advice. I'll admit it seems pretty much like amatuer hour in the NSC now regarding this review, but, I don't think the concern should be "muzzling" the militarty leadership. A clear policy would be nice, actionable goals would be better, and a true strategic vision of an end-state may be a strretch goal at this point. As you say, the military will salute smartly and execute to the best of their ability. (Oh yeah, they'll need the resources too).
Ken
Shadow Government is a blog about U.S. foreign policy under the Obama administration, written by experienced policy makers from the loyal opposition and curated by Peter D. Feaver and William Inboden.
Read More
Jan/Feb 2012
-
Cover Story
-
Feature
-
Inbox
(11)
HIDE COMMENTS LOGIN OR REGISTER REPORT ABUSE