David Sirota reminds us of how General McChrystal used the willingness of military and government elites to turn control of national security over to the military forced Obama's hand on the troop build-up in Afghanistan:
The U.S. Commander in Afghanistan, Gen. Stanley McChrystal, says he wants more troops. His new memo calling for a bigger Afghanistan deployment prompted President Obama to begin carefully considering different ways forward - and Washington to hammer the White House for entertaining any alternative to McChrystal's request.
Republicans lambasted Obama for letting "political motivations...override the needs of our commanders," as Sen. Kit Bond, R-Mo., said. Likewise, the Washington Post insisted that Obama's failure to promptly back McChrystal's surge proposal could "dishonor" America, while the New York Times said no matter what the president wants, "It will be very hard to say no to General McChrystal."
The coordinated assault sharpens that question about who "the deciders" should be - elected officials or the military?
Before Obama had made his decision on whether to escalate in Afghanistan, McChrystal made it known that he wanted an escalation. This put Obama in a difficult political position, given that our national media seems to think the military should decide whether, when, where and for how long we send troops overseas. It also probably didn't help that members of Obama's cabinet seems to share that view
"Hillary had Stan's back during the strategic review," says an adviser. "She said 'If Stan wants it, give him what he needs."
I don't mean to avoid casting any blame on Obama for the escalation, as though he did it unwillingly in the face of insurmountable public pressure to listen to McChrystal. He didn't.
However, by stating his policy preference in public and playing off elite deference to the military on this area of foreign policy, McChrystal set a very dangerous precedent for any possible future time when a President may have different views on troop deployments than the top military commanders. If Obama had not wanted to escalate, McChrystal's public statements would have put Obama in an extremely difficult political position. This poses a threat to civilian governance of the military in America.
It is also worth noting that McChrystal may have even violated the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Artical 88 states:
"Any commissioned officer who uses contemptuous words against the President, the Vice President, Congress, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of a military department, the Secretary of Transportation, or the Governor or legislature of any State, Territory, Commonwealth, or possession in which he is on duty or present shall be punished as a court-martial may direct."
According to Rolling Stone, McChrystal was pretty contemptuous of Vice-President Joe Biden:
McChrystal wonders aloud what Biden question he might get today, and how he should respond "I never know what's going to pop out until I'm up there, that's the problem," he says. Then, unable to help themselves, he and his staff imagine the general dismissing the vice president with a good one-liner.
"Are you asking about Vice President Biden?" McChrystal says with a laugh. "Who's that?"
If McChrystal were to continue on as the commander of US forces in Afghanistan, it would continue to call into question civilian governance of the military in America. The military does not dictate foreign policy, and it is subordinate either the Executive or Legislative branches of government. Or, at least it should be those things. But, if Obama were to allow McChrystal to stay on, it is probably about time to start using terms like Secretary Obama and President McChrystal..
|
STATE BLOGS
