Tuesday - October 06, 2009
Generals are not Monks
There's been a lot of irresponsible talk about the war in Afghanistan. Yes, I'm talking about General McChrystal again: this time about his critics. It's suddenly become improper for generals to talk about strategy. Strange. In fact, Professor Bruce Ackerman made some idiotic assertions in the Washington Post that the President should not be getting advice from his generals, because Goldwater-Nichols Act of 1986 names the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs as the president's principle advisor.
He goes on to assert that General McChrystal has breached some kind of Constitutional obligation by talking about strategy.
Let's make something clear. Generals are not Monks.
There is no vow of silence imposed on military officers. We often tell our Marines that when dealing with the press they should stay in their pay grade*. That is, a private should feel free to talk about what a private knows and does, but shouldn't be talking about what a captain knows and does. The captain should talk about captain level stuff, and the general should talk about general level stuff.
The level for a three starred general put in charge of a theater of war is pretty darned high. This man should be free to discuss anything about the war he wishes to discuss.
As a military officer, he is obliged to stay out of politics, but not out of military matters. If the commander in chief makes a decision on how to fight the war and what policies to observe, the general's obligation is to follow his orders. But until decisions are made, the general is prefectly justified in discussing how to win a war.
That this embarrasses the president is not the general's fault. Men are dying, a war is in danger of being lost, we've certainly lost headway. Obama has delayed sending regular replacements to the theater and has refused to make any decisions in the nearly year of his administration.
The American people deserve to have generals that are interested in winning wars and in knowing how wars are won. We need generals that are motivated to control the enemy, and safeguard our own people.
If Ackerman thinks that the President has reason to be embarrassed by the opinions, which are hardly radical, of his own general officer, then he should advise the president to make some decisions and get a handle on the situation. In a leadership void, someone else will lead. Must lead. B. Hussein cannot simply vote "present" anymore. For the first time in his life he has some responsibilities. That the responsibilities are so great is exactly what he wished for when he ran for office. Perhaps he thought that leadership and making decisions would be easy.
* I'm pretty sure it would be illegal to regulate any speech to the press, privates should certainly be free, if unwise, to speak their minds on strategy to the press.
Go Back to the Start, Do Not Collect $200 Send me your two cents
|
