Clearly, the professional reading list for senior American commanders needs some reviewing. Whether one prefers Huntington, Janowitz, Feaver or Bland, there is no way that calling the highest civilian political authorities in the chain of command, ‘wimps‘ can be considered appropriate. Given that McChrystal apologised rather than denied, we must assume there is at least a kernel of truth to the article.
In reading something about civil-military relations, a commander would find that, as Fever puts it, civilians (in the civil-military relationship in liberal democracies, at any rate) have the right to be wrong. It simply doesn’t do to believe that ‘they just don’t get it’. McChrystal is way off base here and being ‘recalled to the capital for consultations’ is the least of his worries.
Looks like someone started to believe their own PR.
{ 36 comments… read them below or add one }
Call me an old cynic but getting the boot from a failing strategy early seems like a very sensible way of preserving ones reputation
I wonder whether Gen McChrystal is getting Douglas MacArthur syndrome.
Rolling Stone finally has the McChrystal article available: http://bit.ly/bVd1Fm
Calling the Obama and his administration “wimps” and getting fired for it proves truth is no defense.
Obama and his administration are wimps to many of the professional warrior class. From the field to the 3rd floor E-ring in the Pentagon, that opinion is widely shared. No great revelation, there. However, one must know you can’t trust the media and to remain on guard at all times. After all, it is okay to have those thoughts and opinions, even to share among brothers, but it never wise to share outside the brotherhood.
That said, as I see it, removal of McCrystal is warranted mainly for a different reason. He established overly restrictive ROE that are costing American lives and hobbling any chance for effective engagement. From the Washington Examiner: “One soldier shows me the list of new regulations the platoon was given. “Patrol only in areas that you are reasonably certain that you will not have to defend yourselves with lethal force,” the laminated card reads. For a soldier who has traveled halfway around the world to fight, that’s like telling a cop he should only patrol in areas where he knows he won’t have to make arrests. ”
Hmmmm. . .seems both Obama and McCrystal are wimps.
Yes, victory can only come with increased body counts. That’s how the US won their glorious victory in Vietnam. Killing is the only language the “cloven-hoofed” people understand.
ps GR, I assume you’re against civilian control of the military?
The man who ran TF 6-26 is a real wimp, I’m sure…
Mister Ed,
Thank you for that very insightful look at your emotional state.
Have a nice day.
If we really think this Afghan strategy is the right one, firing McChrystal now would be a bad call. But preserving the proper balance in civil-military relations may well be worth more.
I think it’s also fair noting that the Eikenberry leak was also extremely debilitating, and McChrystal’s comments about him, while totally inappropriate for an interview with a popular magazine, reflect the failure to achieve “unity of effort/purpose” for the campaign. If Obama starts cracking heads now, I hope he will be consistent from here on out.
Waaaaaaaaaaay back (well, okay, last June), I had some thoughts on Truman and MacArthur that seem relevant today.
I am certainly no fan of the current administration and think much of the way they have treated McChrystal (and more generally all things military) is appalling (though not surprising), but (if the attributed quotes are accurate) the General was clearly out of line (personally and in not controlling his staff, which tells me he has set a poor example in that regard in private with them) in terms of his obligations to the office of the Commander in Chief as a serving officer under the Constitution (NOT to the President personally–a key difference from the UK model of allegiance to the sovereign).
Incredibly (given his reputed intellect etc.) he is also apparently very naive or careless (in the true sense of the word) in thinking he could have such an interview–especially with a known left leaning publication like the RS and not have the fall out he is now experiencing.
It is quite baffling and very unfortunate in terms of the effect on the war especially given the critical phase the coalition is in.
As I post this I am reading on the telly that he has resigned. The buzz now is that USMC Gen. Mattis (reputedly recently passed over for an ostensibly more PC candidate for USMC Commandant) may be in the running to replace him. Personally I will not hold my breath.
You are ok to think it but to say it is wrong?
Im not a McCrystal fan but I think this incident and previous others shows that there is a gap between reality and the continual spin that Afghanistan can be won by the US (COIN or not).
I dont think this is an issue of democracy or not, even Stalin defered to the opinions of his general once he had set the course, Hitler tried to micromanage the war and didnt do so well.
McArthur got canned for his suggestion that China might benifit from some atomic bombs whats McChrystal getting spanked about? Dissent from the spin.
In the end it looks like either McChrystal will be muzzeled or removed so as to continue the upbeat message that Afghanistan can be won despite the mountains of eveidence to the contrary.
This is politics not military strategy.
So my question is who is really running the war?
I am not sure if you are serious or asking rhetorically (“You are ok to think it but to say it is wrong?”.
Of course everyone (I hope) in the US military (and beyond) should be free to “think” what they will. That is the essence of humanity and indeed was embodied in our Constitutional system of governance as well as those God-given individual rights that regrettably many in America now seem to take for granted. Indeed, one of the strengths of our “system” (and all its constituent parts such as the role and structure of the military within our republican system) is freedom to think.
It does not seem to me at all incongruous, however, that with this freedom comes concomitant responsibilities, and in the military context, that includes that of circumspection about one’s thoughts. This obligation becomes more acute as one moves up the chain of command since the adverse effect on morale and discipline (as so evident in this instance where most of the controversial and objectionable comments appear to be attributed to members of the General’s staff rather than him personally) is geometric rather than linear.
This is a fundamental precept of leadership, which is again why I am so baffled by this apparent lapse by McChrystal since the behavior of his subordinates is necessarily a mirror of the “climate” he either created or allowed to fester within his staff. Professional (in the true and broadest sense of the term) military officers understand this well and are always on guard as to how they “appear” to their subordinates in terms of their communications (active and passive) about their opinions of their superiors, especially their civilian masters.
This is absolutely vital in our Constitutional system of civilian control of the military. Of course, at the higher levels within the uniformed components, it is the obligation of officers (regrettably too often forgotten or rationalized out of “careerism” or other failures of judgment and moral courage) to candidly (but respectfully) provide their civilian masters with their reasoned views, even if contrary to or unpopular with those of their political masters so as to enable the latter to make informed decisions about military matters.
This duty does not, however, give license to serving uniformed officers to speak “publicly” (including especially their own subordinates) against their civilian masters, whether substantively or in more shallow ways (deriding them personally etc.). If an officer feels strongly enough that his or her civilian leaders (or senior military leaders) are wrong or otherwise acting improperly there are mechanisms to express those concerns within the system or, depending on the circumstances and nature of the objection, it may require the officer to resign/retire and then speak out “unofficially.”
An officer cannot “have it both ways” by continuing to serve within his or her oath of office and at the same time speaking/and or acting in a manner that is contrary to that oath.
Reading the article certainly doesn’t make it feel like anyone knows what’s going on. It just may be that the strategy (of COIN) just isn’t workable. So, what to do? How many generals were fired in the US Civil War? Trial and error isn’t sexy, but perhaps it is better (sometimes) than sticking with a plan (or a man) that isn’t working well.
That the general acts with such contempt is one thing, but that this attitude has spread so widely amongst his ‘disciples’ (including those from other armies!) is worrisome. The RS piece is not undercover reporting; it is fly on the wall stuff. Open derision denotes ill-discipline.
Further along that line: it is neither good tactics, strategy, policy, nor leadership to ‘feel sorry’ for the soldiers. The perceptible tone that we should let soldiers ‘whack bozos’ and ‘get their gun on’ because it helps them feel better, more in control of their destinies, is most unhelpful. This McChrystal seems to get. Others do not. Populism of this kind is to be resisted, wherever it comes from (the troops, the Washington Times, n’importe ou).
Is he alleged to have called them wimps? Or was that just part of the subtitle chosen by the author?
Now that is an interesting and highly relevant question. One does wonder if the article is 100% accurate. All reporting suffers from some level of bias, some more than others. Heck, even the New York Times deliberately distorts (having been directly misquoted and taken out of context by them, and I have my own tapes to prove it, I speak with some experience on this matter).
Either the comments/tone in the article are accurate or they are not. If they are not accurate, why hasn’t McCrystal stepped forward to deny/defend? One possible answer is he doesn’t want to get into a public he-said/he-said argument. That would serve no good purpose because nothing he could say would put a lid on the situation and only inflame. It is also possible–and I think is the case–McCrystal is not denying/defending because the general tone of the article is accurate, though the quotes may not be.
At any rate, they should have exercised better judgment, especially when around a Rolling Stone reporter.
As posted earlier, Obama and Biden are not well respected generally among the warrior class, and this class are allowed their own personal thoughts and opinions, and should be allowed to express them . . .within limits and among those that can be trusted. Here on KoW there have been threads and posts discussing an officers responsibility to be informed, aware and engaged. These threads and posts agree warriors should not merely be soulless robot’s “just following orders,” but they should have thoughts and opinions on the mission.
Would the concern about a(n) (allegedly) publically expressed low opinion also be apparent if the situation was reversed and the general and staff publicly expressed great fondness and personal respect for President Bush? Would the chorus be singing the same tune or, instead, speak ill of their mindless following of orders and not thinking clearly? Interesting question to consider.
Just a couple of adds from this morning’s news and an opinion:
1. According to RS editors, the article and quotes were specifically passed by McChrystal (or his staff I suppose) for accuracy before publication and no comments were received. (If true, mind boggling).
2. The journalist(s) working the story were reportedly at the time “free lancers” so it is unclear if the subjects of the story knew it would appear in RS. (True or not, still mind-boggling at the naivete’ if nothing else such a senior staff).
I am not sure of the relevance to the issues at hand as to whether the comments (if as reported) were “true” or otherwise reflective of the sentiments of the speakers or more generally in the military. Having served under 7 presidents I can say not all were “well regarded” by me or more generally in the military if various surveys and reports over those years were accurate.
Nevertheless, officers must avoid the kinds of things reflected in the RS article (again, if accurately reported) regardless of their personal or more widely held opinions, even if “correct” or otherwise based on “concrete” reasons. Unlike the laws of libel, truth is not, or should it ever be, a defense to such conduct by serving officers.
Well said.
G/R, you are always one for getting my goat, but this line really does it for me:
“Obama and Biden are not well respected generally among the warrior class, and this class are allowed their own personal thoughts and opinions, and should be allowed to express them …within limits and among those that can be trusted.”
Warrior class? Wow. Things are as bad as they seem. If you speak for more than those in your immediate compound, this is not just an epiphenomenal ‘slip of the tongue’ or an ‘error in judgement’ but rather a symptom of a rather unhealthy, root and branch, holier than thou attitude. Lines like ‘among those that can be trusted’ evoke cigar-smoke filled rooms, echoing with the sounds of good ol’ country music, and Guns and Ammo poster-girls on the walls.
The civil-military relationship is hierarchical and not subject, unlike other aspects of the American constitutional arrangement, technical independence (like the judiciary) or ‘checks and balances’ (like the legislature).
As citizens, warriors (roar!) get one vote, the same as truck drivers, ballet dancers, and gym teachers. Like it or not, and Starship Trooper-style republican militaristic fantasies notwithstanding, they are not better than anyone else.
As soldiers, they have to suck it up and soldier on. Opinion? Never heard of it, general. Dis-miss!
There are no other options.
As I have indicated elsewhere, I agree in the main with your position but before responding can you tell me what you mean by this: “Like it or not, and Starship Trooper-style republican militaristic fantasies … ?”
“G/R, you are always one for getting my goat,. . .”
Pleased to be of service.
Anyway, I gather you object to “warrior class.”
How about “professional warrior?”
Or is it the term “warrior” that you object to? If so, why? Is it because warrior’s are dedicated to “service before self” and concepts of honor and virtue?
Regarding “better than anyone else.” Personal honor and integrity are traits highly valued by the warrior class/professional, and I would hope by you, as well. If some people lack those traits, I do think I am better than them. Don’t you think you are better than unsavory characters of low character? Based upon the attempts at mockery you directed my way, you obviously think you are better than me—and all I’ve done is offer a contrary point of view. (To be clear, I am never offended by your posts. They are, after all, merely the words of some “faceless bureaucrat” that I do not know, so why be bothered).
As a former Texas police officer (you got to love that ;-)), I recall respecting highly a specific alcoholic street-dwelling drunk because he was a man of his word. If he said he would do something, he did it. No question. Conversely, here in DC, I’ve met people in some very high places and I think less of them than the drunk because they are most certainly not men of their word.
I am interested in reading your response to CJ’s query.
A “warrior” is one who makes war. Personal honour and integrity are not directly required to do that.
Personal honor and integrity are traits highly valued by the warrior class/professional, and I would hope by you, as well. If some people lack those traits, I do think I am better than them.
The difficulty with this idea is that whether or not other people lack those traits is very subjective. It would be very easy to start from the conclusion, “I don’t like X”, and then tell yourself you’re better than X because X lacks honour and/or integrity.
Note also that personal honour and integrity are said to be valued by the “warrior class”. Apparently, they’re not valued by anyone else.
“A ‘warrior’ is one who makes war. Personal honour and integrity are not directly required to do that.”
Only in the broadest of defnition. Actually, there are many definitions, and the one we warriors embrace has to to with things like honor, integrity, service, chivalry, that sort of stuff.
“The difficulty with this idea . . . ”
No difficulty at all. Just keep it to the basic, don’t make it any harder than you have to by trying to untie the Gordian knot of moral relativism.
“Apparently, they’re not valued by anyone else.”
Said in the Warrior classs they are. Never said anything about other “classes.”
While GR can get my goat from time to time as well (the “cloven hoof” bit always has my fingers itching to reply) I do agree with him on the idea of what a warrior is.
Not all soldiers are warriors and not all warriors are soldiers. Not all who fight have virtue and not all who dont do (make sense???).
Not all militaries instill values into their soldiers and even those that do can not always claim that their individuals have them but its easy to spot an individual who does have them, soldier or not.
I learnt meany honourable soldierly values in the military and warrior virtues elsewhere, I do not think the two are always linked but they do share a common heritage.
The difference between soldier/warrior views on common values and those of others is how they are articulated in places such as the battlefiled and in the organisations which operate in such enviroments and the variables for doubt or grey areas are a lot less due to the nature of that enviroment. The universal right or wong of such values I dont know but they have a time and place.
I do think that in todays modern militaries that such values do distort and stretch beyond their humble origins as so many individuals in militaries today operate well away from the crucible of battle as such can afford the broader views which come when you can accept a larger degree of doubt.
I also think that PMCs and Mercanaries in general retain these values only at an individual level (if at all) as such views can and do often come into conflcit with the profit motive and as such are discarded quaickly.
Is it because warrior’s(sic) are dedicated to “service before self” and concepts of honor and virtue?
If true, oh dear, the orcs are, apparently, dead wrong on this one.
Indeed they are, after all, evil. Who knew :-)
(“The modern use of the English word ‘orc’ to denote a race of evil, humanoid creatures begins with J. R. R. Tolkien.”)
…And since orc warriors are the “warrior class” among orcs, shouldn’t that be “warrior credo” or something like that instead of “warrior class”, if you’re talking about something virtuous? After all, who likes orcs?
C/J, I am referring to republicanism with a small ‘r’: in the novel Starship Troopers, Heinlein creates a republic where, the only to become a citizen–the only way to count, that is–is to have first been a soldier. The idea of separating society into functional ‘classes’ is a hallmark of Platonic republicanism.
G/R, my point is that no matter how ‘good’ one may be (and I am sure that you are among the best) each of us only gets one vote. And, collectively, in their role as professionals, soldiers don’t get a public vote. ‘Theirs not to make reply, Theirs not to reason why,’ and so on, I am afraid. When we meet our maker (praise be upon her), we shall be judged on how we spent our time here on earth. Until then, politically speaking at least, we are all the same. Tinker, tailor, soldier, spy.
To my mind (such that it is), I see a difference between ‘warrior’ and ‘soldier’. Perhaps because I am a bureaucrat (huzzah!) I tend to see these things as Weber saw them…ahh! but that is another post…
Heinlein’s Starship Troopers is a classic and one of my favorites.
Shame what they did to it when they made that awful movie.
Thanks for the clarification–I admit to not having read ST , although i note it was added to my service’s reading list some time ago. Given the stack of yet to be read material scattered around me, I have not had the time for SciFi titles, even if popular in some circles for other reasons than fantasy.
Seeing that your reference was deeper than my initial take (as I assumed it had to be given your other excellent, though at times IMHO wrong-headed, posts ;-) ) I think we again are in agreement within the narrow point you were making. More broadly, however I do think some form of national service is on balance a good thing for a constitutional republic like ours. I add a caveat though–only if it is evenly applied without favoritism like that enjoyed in the Vietnam era that afforded many (the evil Cheney and the misunderstood Teddy Bear Clinton come to mind as examples).
I also agree that the military should not be officially considered a special class or caste, although I firmly believe the military should be ( by the govt as such) a special profession in the sense of it’s standards of conduct, entrance requirements etc. Regardless, military service should not be the sole criterion for citizenship- a corollary however would be that merely being born in the US should not equate to citizenship either, but that is a topic for another day.
Yes, G/R, but Heinlein’s book had no shower scenes. So, you win some, you lose some.
Whoa. . . . :-)
That’s compelling me to borrow from Bairnsfather:
If you know a better shower scene, I’ll go to it.
Thanks to one and all for intriguing me.
I must say this excursion from the subject has restored myu faith in those who inhabit these ivied fora. ;-)
One word: Denise Richards. ‘Nuf said.
The top half of this discussion is pretty deep, i.e., Platonic republicanism et al, but the bottom half is pretty shallow–perfect for my contribution:
Denise Richards is two words. More to the point she did not appear in the shower scene in question. Alas.
Are you SURE? Oh, the humanity.