The McChrystal Attitude

Some writers have suggested that the experience of ten years of continuing conflict under fluctuating levels of direction, support and leadership within the military and civilian chains of command have created, at the least, impatience and frustration, more often disgust and, within a relative minority, reckless disdain within the military officer corps. I find the suggestions persuasive. I recall my own attitude, one shared and frequently discussed among many, about military and civilian leadership as Viet Nam continued.

I would also suggest another possible basis for the reckless expressions of opinions in the McChrystal episode. The U.S. military continues to draw from the broader polis. The officer corps and the volunteers in the military constitute, to an extent, a special breed of citizen-force, to be sure. However, they are still the product of our culture and with modern technology providing generally unfettered access remain significantly influenced by that culture. Beginning during the latter years of the Bush administration and substantially increasing during the Obama presidency, the rhetoric of politics has encompassed and encouraged open and repeated expressions of disdain, insult and antagonism directed at the highest levels of civilian control to a level unprecedented in its reach if not its vitriol. It seems to me that this environment may well have relaxed the professionalism and good sense of those actors in the McChrystal affair.

I had said it early in this and other forums that the vitriolic rhetoric and permissiveness of the highest level of elected officials in this country could eventually create a force destructive of our political institutions. I would now add the military as another unintended victim.

General McChrystal Disserves

The conduct of General McChrystal and his staff, for whom he bears full responsibility, is a gross deviation from the standard of conduct of any officer in the United States Army. He should be relieved of his command immediately. However, to dwell further on McChrystal is to further feed an arrogance that was at the core of the conduct. General McChrystal, by the reported conduct, has created a situation that may undercut the mission of our forces in Afghanistan and thereby devalue the gains made through the suffering and deaths of our men and women. The impatience of an American people distracted from the reasons we are fighting in Afghanistan will only be enflamed by the appearances, if not actualities, of disunity at the highest levels of our efforts. The General and his staff have dishonored themselves and the men and women valiantly serving in that theater of war.

The reported conduct does not reflect on nor diminish the years of extraordinary service and personal sacrifice he has shown in the performance of duty. The President could still draw upon McChrystal’s experience and military insights by ordering him to work at the direction of his replacement in a staff position outside the operational area. I recognize the inherent difficulties of such an arrangement but, the mission being paramount, the egos will just have to suck it up or resign.