Ignore, for the time being, the fact that several other high-ranking Obama officials richly deserve to be fired for egregious failings of honesty and competence. Gen. McChrystal, the commander in charge of U.S. combat in Afghanistan, has followed in the unfortunate footsteps of General Douglas McArthur, who openly criticized President Harry Truman and lost his command as a result. McChrystal has to go too.
A general must not and cannot publicly oppose his superior. A general must not embarrass the President. McChrystal’s willingness to criticize President Obama and other officials in an upcoming Rolling Stone interview does more than demonstrate terrible judgment. It is an unforgivable breach of loyalty, and the President should not forgive it.
I am waiting for the response from the President’s most relentless critics in the world of punditry. Will they argue that dismissing the general shows that Obama cares more about a bruised ego than winning the war? Will they claim that an impolitic Rolling Stone interview should never be the deciding factor in removing a talented military strategist at a critical time? Will the excuse McChrystal because he may be justifiably frustrated with the President’s detachment from the war, and failure to provide the whole-hearted support he promised during his campaign? If so, such criticism will prove the critics’ own poor understanding of management and the chain of command. If President Obama allows such blatant disrespect and disloyalty, he will provide a license for similar conduct throughout his Administration, including the military, with disastrous consequences.
The fact that the President has been wrong not to fire others under his direct authority has no bearing on the removal of a disloyal in impudent general. Firing McChrystal (or allowing him to resign, which is just a genteel version of the same thing) is the right move, and a necessary move.
Ethics Alarms 
Necessary yes. Perhaps there was no other way for the General to express frustration at the conduct of the war. It’s highly doubtful that General McChrystal’s observations had not been voiced privately with Obama; it’s highly doubtful that General McChrystal had not the expectation of the consequences of making his views very public. It makes much more sense that he had simply had enough, felt that he could not, with integrity, continue as theatre commander with such leadership from the commander-in-chief, or that he knew of other things happening there (e.g. US armed forces enabling the opium trade) that he felt were intolerable. If you are going to fall on your sword, at least make the sacrifice useful, even if only some will understand the concerns of the ultimate US armed forces “insider” in the Afghanistan war.
But Peter: “Rolling Stone”??????? That was the best, most dignified way he could make his feelings known? Wasn’t, say, Maxim available?
Good point. Maybe too much dope smoking when the General was our age may have biased him.
Pingback: Easy Ethics Call: Gen. McCrystal Must Go « Ethics Alarms « Ethics Find
Indeed. Easy call. Clearly a violation not just of ethics, but a failure of common sense.
Pingback: Loyalty and Trust: The Difference Between Generals and Pirogies « Ethics Alarms
The question is… who was undermining WHOSE authority? Generals are not liable to say such things about civilian leadership unless there’s some severe issues in play.
Story was that he could not be counted upon to be a good “globalist”. Or maybe having to order the execution of Pat Tillmann finally got to him… maybe thought that overseeing the CIA’s not-so-covert opium trade in Afghanistan wasn’t something he wanted to do anymore…