Did Marine Commandant James Conway cross a civil-military line?

Posted By Peter Feaver Wednesday, August 25, 2010 - 11:11 AM Share

Marine Commandant James Conway may have gotten himself in a bit of hot water with his recent public remarks about Afghanistan and the "don't ask, don't tell" policy.  

On Afghanistan, General Conway said, ""We think right now [Obama's announced Afghanistan timeline is] probably giving our enemy sustenance... We've intercepted communications that say, hey, you know, we only have to hold out for so long... " The New York Times gave this a more problematic headline ( Top Marine Says Afghan Deadline May Help Taliban) than did the Washington Post (Taliban could be misleading its forces) ( ). I bet the White House prefers the Post's spin. But either way, Conway was simply stating the obvious: President Obama's announced timeline for Afghanistan has some downsides. Even supporters of the timeline, if they are honest, must acknowledge this inarguable fact. Most experts go on to say that Obama mishandled the announcement and created needless confusion about the meaning of the timeline, thus exacerbating the downsides; this is my view. And most experts probably say that on balance the costs of the announced timeline may outweigh the benefits; this is also my view. And some even go so far as to view it as a strategic blunder that may inadvertently sabotage the surge, possibly jeopardizing the war; I am not prepared to say this at this point, but it is not an absurdly unreasonable fear. If General Conway had volunteered any of those additional opinions in public, he might have crossed a civil-military line (unless those opinions had been solicited in Congressional testimony). But he didn't, and so he deserves a pass.

The White House may be more annoyed by his comments about lifting the "don't ask, don't tell" policy. He repeated his oft-stated personal objection to changing the policy and his belief that 'an overwhelming majority [of Marines] would like not to be roomed with a person who is openly homosexual.'" Since Obama has made it clear that he intends to allow gays and lesbians to serve openly in the armed forces, Conway's remarks were "off message." But since President Obama and Secretary Gates have also made it clear that they are soliciting military opinion on the topic during this interval, Conway's comments probably do not cross a civilian control line -- especially since he also made it clear that if the president so directs, he will salute, obey, and implement the policy within the Marine Corps. However, Conway's comments dance up to the line and, I expect, will cause heartburn among Obama's advisors.  

The civil-military norms are clear in theory but hard to apply in practice. Military leaders owe their chain of command their candid professional military opinion, especially when that opinion runs counter to the predilections of civilian leaders. Military leaders also answer to Congress, and have the same obligation. But military leaders should not cross from advising, to advocating or insisting on policy outcomes. The military should not be politicking in an effort to undo or constrain the options of civilian leaders. The challenge is to explain current policy to the American public in a way that balances the need to be honest about military professional opinion with the need to let the commander-in-chief set policy.

This is an especially delicate line to walk when civilian leaders choose to do something that, in the opinion of the military, jeopardizes national security. But provided that military leaders have made their concerns known privately to responsible civilian authorities, they have no further responsibility to block policy. On the contrary, they owe their bosses their respectful effort to make the policy succeed. It is the responsibility of the bosses of the civilian leaders - the voters -- to hold political leaders accountable for bad national security policy choices.

Obama probably doesn't welcome Conway's comments, but I think they fall short of violating civil-military norms. Annoying the boss is not a firing offense. And President Obama, who has been pretty sure-footed on this one particular aspect of civil-military relations, will probably take the wiser path of letting the matter pass.

John Angelillo-Pool/Getty Images

EXPLORE:AFGHANISTAN, MILITARY, OBAMA ADMINISTRATION, POLITICS
 
Facebook|Twitter|Reddit

MOOJ KILLER

12:10 AM ET

August 26, 2010

Sources

This Junior Marine Officer would love to know Kunino actual sources. I bet he has none and is just vent some pent up frustration.

 

MOOJ KILLER

2:12 PM ET

August 26, 2010

And you didn't answer

But I will. While I agree that enforcing a timeline that does not slide with mission objectives is a bad thing and that it could give an enemy the fortitude to "hold out a little longer", I do not think that Marines, myself included are going to use contemptuous language against the president for his statement. We may not agree but we will obey the directions and orders of the President. That doesn;t mean we can give our opinion too.

So who are these Junior Marine Officers who have been misleading the American people? Or are you just full of crap? I hope that you will enlighten me.

 

ZATHRAS

5:02 AM ET

August 27, 2010

Conway

I wish General Conway had been a little more reflective about the whole deadline thing. After all, the deadline for beginning to end the increase of American troops into Afghanistan was mostly President Obama's answer to the question: to bluff, or not to bluff?

Obama could have made it very clear that he was committed to push as many men and resources into Afghanistan as he needed to achieve victory, for as long as it took to achieve victory. If he had, we would then have to wonder how widely he was believed -- given that American public support of the Afghan war effort has been declining, and that public opinion in Europe and Canada against maintaining the current level of operations in Afghanistan is even less supportive. Within the ranks of the enemy, every other step the administration could have taken would still be read as a sign that America was preparing to walk away. Attack Afghan government corruption, and America is undermining its Afghan partner; express confidence in Pakistan's determination to fight terrorism, and America is seen to be embracing an idea everyone in the region knows is wrong, and preparing to turn Afghanistan back over to the ISI and its allies.

Obama decided not to bluff, which was the right call in a bad situation. I wish Gen. Conway had said something a little more humble, therefore seemly, to the effect that since he and his fellow senior officers had failed to win in Afghanistan after seven years, the war effort there was in jeopardy. Conway and his associates would therefore need to do their jobs better than they had previously.

Obviously, this line would have exposed Conway to some adverse comment for gratuitously donning the hairshirt. He might have mitigated the damage by noting that earlier American and NATO commanders in Afghanistan were hampered for years by the malignant incompetence of Obama's predecessor as Commander-in-Chief, for example. He could have dwelt on the damage done to the Afghan war effort over the course of many years by the Iraq adventure. He might even have gone a little farther afield, observing that a new President bequeathed a collapsing economy by the old President obviously can't be extravagant in the military commitments he makes.

Conway could, in my judgement, have made all of these points without violating any civil-military norms. After all, no one would think any less of him if he gave a speech noting James Madison's shortcomings as a war President, or detailing all the ways Woodrow Wilson failed to prepare the American army to fight the Germans in World War I. Yesterday's Presidents are yesterday's lunch meat -- put another way, they're not in the chain of command any more, and so deserve no pulled punches. Least of all from a senior general on his way to retirement himself: if an officer in that position can't be frank, when can he?

 

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