CATO INSTITUTE
McChrystal Flap Puts Civilian Control of Military at Issue
Christopher Preble, director of foreign policy studies and author of The Power Problem: How American Military Dominance Makes Us Less Safe, Less Prosperous, and Less Free:
The unfortunate truth is that McChrystal's comments would not get this much media traction if the Obama administration were not so concerned about maintaining a positive spin on this unpopular war. Still, there is an established chain of command in the U.S. military, and General McChrystal and his aides exercised very poor judgment by speaking so candidly to a journalist writing for Rolling Stone. It should not surprise us that there are differences from time to time between military and civilian leaders. But in our country, civilian leaders make decisions and military leaders carry them out.
Civilian control of the military should not become a partisan issue. If Republicans claim President Obama is undercutting General McChrystal, the leader on the ground, no one should take these remarks seriously. They should be reminded of a similar situation in 2006, when generals voiced opinions that dissented from the White House, and some GOP leaders dismissed their comments an act of insubordination of Commander-in-Chief George W. Bush.
Malou Innocent, foreign policy analyst and co-author of "Escaping the 'Graveyard of Empires': A Strategy to Exit Afghanistan:"
McChrystal cannot be faulted for offering his honest opinions. But expressing private assessments about the war's tactics and strategy is one thing; caustically mocking the civilian leadership is quite another. Indeed, much like his highly classified document "leaked" last year to the Washington Post, Gen. McChrystal, despite his sincerest apologies, has consistently threatened civilian control of the war.
If the White House does not respond swiftly to McChrystal's remarks, it risks losing the respect of the uniformed military and the majority of the American public.
Justin Logan, associate director of foreign policy studies:
The main question raised by the profile in Rolling Stone regards Gen. McChrystal's judgment. What did he think was going to happen when the article was released? And even now, note what the general is apologizing for: "this profile." Not anything he said, or the sentiments themselves, but it sounds as if he's apologizing for having participated in the article.
An additional theme that comes across in the article is the image of McChrystal and his inner circle as an arrogant, insular team that fancy themselves not as military officials taking orders from the White House, but rather as directing U.S. policy in Afghanistan. The cult of the military fostered by elected officials—and their desire to avoid responsibility for deciding on military issues—has produced an environment where McChrystal apparently thought that issuing such remarks to a reporter was acceptable. It is not.
A fight with the uniformed military is the last thing a U.S. president wants, particularly one whose very identity has been under assault since before his inauguration. But the coming conflict with McChrystal appears to be a "necessary war" that the Obama administration did not choose. They need to deal with this quickly and decisively, despite the obvious risks in doing so.
Related Materials: Click here to read the article "Leaving Afghanistan Moves Beyond Left vs. Right," by Malou Innocent, Politico, March 10, 2010
Click here to watch Malou Innocent discuss Afghanistan on Al Jazeera's Inside Story.
Click here to read the article "Time to Leave," by Christopher A. Preble, USA Today, December 2, 2009