The Decision to Fire General McChrystal was controversial
The decision to fire General McChrystal was controversial. One argument in favor of him being fired was captured by Eliot Cohen, a noted civil-military relations expert and Professor at Johns Hopkins, who wrote the following op-ed in the Wall Street Journal: “General McChrystal’s just-published interview in Rolling Stone magazine is an appalling violation of norms of civil-military relations. To read it is to wince, repeatedly—at the mockery of the vice president and president’s special representative to Afghanistan and Pakistan, at the sniping directed toward the U.S. ambassador . . . The quotes from General McChrystal’s underlings bespeak a staff so clueless, swaggering and out of control that a wholesale purge looks to be indicated.”1
On the other hand, Kori Schake, a West Point professor and former government official advised,“Anyone who thinks they can do a better job than General McChrystal at putting together a counter-insurgency strategy, persuading warfighters to adopt restraint while keeping them fighting, bringing the Karzai government into the fight and up to the standard, and keeping our allies contributing, ought to step forward. Until then, we ought to let him concentrate his efforts on winning the war we’re fighting.”2
Keeping this information in mind, read the following scenarios and choose one for your initial Group A discussion board posting.
Scenario 1
At a large planning conference held in Washington, DC, you start a conversation with two officers, one from Turkey and the other from Colombia. Both spoke about the difficulties of combatting terrorism in their countries and wonder how a recognized expert like General McChrystal could be fired. How do you explain the professional ethical issues at stake in the President’s decision to fire General McChrystal?
1 Eliot A. Cohen, “Why McChrystal Has to Go,” The Wall Street Journal, June 23, 1010.
2 Kori, Schake, “If You Can Do Better, Step Forward,” in “Should the Runaway General Be Fired?”, The New York Times, Room for Debate Blog, June 22, 2010.
Peer Response
I chose to answer scenario 1. I chose it because something similar did in fact occur. In my previous job (Executive Officer at the Inter-American Defense College), I had the honor and privilege of interacting with several foreign diplomats, high ranking senior officials, and Generals/Flag Officers. While General McChrystal was not the particular topic, we did have lengthy discussions regarding the differences in how our militaries conduct themselves and the expectations of a military officer.
In General McChrystal’s case, he was fired so we could continue to uphold the military’s culture of accountability. General McChrystal was held accountable for his disrespect and contempt of the chain of command. As a military officer, regardless of our rank and position, we are able to dialogue and voice our disagreements with our superiors behind closed doors. However, once we are given a lawful order, we have to carry them out as if the orders were of our own design.
In our oath of office, we state “that [we] take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion[1]”. We do so because our word is our bond, without integrity the moral pillar of our core values is lost[2]. In General McChrystal’s case, his integrity was lost. He was still a great man and a great general, but he betrayed the trust of his Commander and Chief. General McChrystal obliterated President Obama’s authority with the military, and undermined unity of effort through undermining the civilian control of the military[3].
Because of the aforementioned topics, I have discussed with various Latin American leaders that a US military officer is held to a higher standard. A military officer is not a 9 to 5 job. We are on 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days of the year. As such, we have to speak and conduct ourselves in a professional manner—because we are always on duty!
[1] The Oath of Office. Airman Online. (2019). Online at: https://www.airman.af.mil/Portals/17/002%20All%20Products/006%20Trifolds/Oath_Pamphlet_for_Officer.pdf?ver=2015-12-22-113949-437
[2] The Oath of Office, Ibid.
[3] Noah Shachtman. “Why Obama had to fire McChrystal”. Wired: Security (June 2010). Online at: https://www.wired.com/2010/06/obama-had-to-do-it/
We can write this or a similar paper for you! Simply fill the order form!
