General Stanley McChrystal

General Stanley McChrystal’s comments in the Rolling Stone article, along with the comments of several of his staff officers, surprised and offended me (Michael Hastings, “The Runaway General,” Rolling Stone, June 22, 2010)

General McChrystal’s remarks surprised me because I’ve never known a flag or general officer, let alone a four-star officer, who was unaware of the consequences of publicly disrespecting those in positions of higher authority. Few, if any, ascend to four-star rank without once having had to discipline, informally or formally, a subordinate for failing to respect the chain of command. The time for disagreement is before a decision is made, when a subordinate owes his/her senior the loyalty of a frank and fully expressed opinion in order to help the senior to make the best possible decision. Often the place for such comments is in private; the public media is never an appropriate setting for that opinion.

Once a decision is made, the subordinate owes his/her senior the duty of loyalty. Military leaders learn very early in their careers that taking responsibility for a senior’s decision, even a decision with which the leader strongly disagrees, is an essential element of good leadership. The more senior an officer becomes, the more critical support for the chain of command becomes, especially in war. Subordinates who perceive their leader’s lack of confidence in the chain of command may harbor doubts that diminish battle effectiveness and that cast aspersions on the value of sacrifices necessary to successfully implement policies and decisions. Officers unable or unwilling to support a senior’s decision should ask to be relieved or retired.

Negative public comments about political leaders, especially those leaders for whom or with whom a senior military officer works, conflict with the primary duty of a United States military officer to defend the Constitution. The military works for the civilian government. When an officer, especially a senior officer, can no longer perform his or her duties in good conscience, then that officer has a moral responsibility to resign or to retire. Officers who fail to fulfill their duty to the Constitution offend me because this is duty is foundational to preserving a civilian democracy.

Military operations in the last fifty years have increasingly become political in nature. That observation particularly holds in the case of counterterrorism and nation building, the precise types of operations with which General McChrystal was tasked in Afghanistan. Unable to get along with U.S. civilian authorities entrusted with oversight of some of those operations, such as the U.S. ambassador and special representative to the area, General McChrystal faced a choice that is simple to state but perhaps difficult to implement. On the one hand, he could have resigned. On the other hand, he could have “played nice,” i.e., cooperated. Without the ability to do the latter, he would never have risen to four-star rank in today’s highly politicized military. No other honorable choice existed.

Publicly expressing disdain and contempt for the civilian leaders as a four-star has a tremendous adverse effect on countless subordinates, suggesting to them that such attitudes are reasonable and such behavior thinkable. President Obama, in my estimation, truly had no alternative but to “accept the General’s resignation.” To General McChrystal’s credit, he apparently recognized the inappropriateness and unacceptability of his behavior and proffered his resignation.

McChrystal is not the first four-star to have challenged civilian authority and lost. Another recent, highly publicized case was that of Admiral William (Fox) Fallon, whom President George W. Bush relieved as Commander of Central Command for publicly expressing disagreement. (Thomas P.M. Barnett, “The Man Between War and Peace,” Esquire, June 23, 2010)

Fallon was also wrong. He should have fought the policy battle privately; if unsuccessful, he should have retired and then fought the battle publicly. To his credit, he did not publicly disrespect higher authority.

These incidents make me wonder whether the process for selecting officers to the most senior military ranks is inherently flawed. My observations are that the military promotion system encourages conformity and the avoidance of mistakes. The system does not encourage healthy internal conflict that includes honest, appropriate, and timely expression of dissent. Consequently, when officers achieve positions in which they find themselves unable to conform, they act inappropriately.

Furthermore, the dominant ethos in the military clashes significantly with the dominant ethos in the civilian community, whether that of the Republicans or the Democrats. The lack of experience in dealing with healthy internal conflict as one rises through the ranks leaves a flag or general officer ill prepared to cope with the complex, multivalent world of American politics.