A Tough Choice
CNAS Author: Nathaniel C. Fick
Original Post: Room for Debate: Should the Runaway General be Fired?
Type: CNAS Commentary
June 23, 2010 — The military members who defend our freedom of speech necessarily give up some portion of their own. Article 88 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, the law that governs military conduct, dictates that “any commissioned officer who uses contemptuous words against the President, the Vice President, Congress, the Secretary of Defense … shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.”
General McChrystal’s future will come down to two men talking, and one deciding.
General McChrystal’s comments in Rolling Stone, therefore, seem to justify his being relieved of his command. Firing him would have the benefit not only of reaffirming the sacrosanct tenet of civilian control of the military, but also of signaling throughout the ranks that public contempt for civilian leaders is intolerable, and that politically accountable civilians are rightly the ones running this war.
But, the president must weigh the benefits of relieving his commander against an assessment of how badly General McChrystal’s leadership is needed in Afghanistan. If his strategic approach is the country’s best option, and if the relationships he has developed are essential, then time is our most precious commodity, and the cost of changing commanders for the second time in 13 months is high — signaling strategic disarray to U.S. allies and adversaries alike.
This is the choice the president must make, and he ought to do it unencumbered by broader questions of U.S. policy in Afghanistan, which should be addressed separately, or political perceptions related to a weak economy, the Gulf oil spill or other concerns, which are distractions here. Away from all the staffs and commentators, it will come down to two men talking, and one deciding.
Topic(s): Regional Security Challenges, Terrorism, Irregular Warfare and Crime, Development and Diplomacy, U.S. Military Forces & Operations, U.S. National Security and Defense Policy
Project(s): Afghanistan and Pakistan, U.S. Military Forces and Operations, Civilian Capacity, Diplomacy and Development, Military Wellness
People: Nathaniel C. Fick
