Curious Reactions to the McChrystal Affair

Posted by Larry Miller on June 24, 2010 under How | Be the First to Comment

Now that the media circus surrounding the surprising honesty of General Stanley McCrystal is dying down, we can look at the reactions of both the players and spectators, and possibly learn something from them. Essentially they fall into two categories. There are those who see this as strictly an insubordination and chain of command issue. In the other camp are those who see only the right and wrong of the issue. Like many of life’s questions there is some virtue surrounding both positions, but they do tell us a lot about the person holding them.

As a soldier, Gen. McChrystal was expected to follow orders. As a career soldier, particularly one who achieved his rank, he knew not to publicly question his orders, or the civilian source. This is pretty much cut and dried that his actions warranted his dismissal. Some who publicly criticized him did so primarily on the principle that the man should know his place in the overall scheme of things Others could not accept the fact that this man who was almost universally highly regarded, both at home and abroad would have the temerity to question the alleged manhood of the White House resident. It is unfortunate that those of honor and good will would be lumped together with the blatant partisanship of this administration.

The concept of civilian control of the military is basic to our American system of government. The elected representatives of the people must be able to direct or restrain the vast power to kill and destroy that we have developed. The rub comes when this civilian control is exercised by those who despise the soldiers, sailors and airmen who keep us safe, or if they have no clue as to what will preserve or harm our great nation.

Reports that the good general was less than complementary to the Commander in Chief brought a comparatively lightning quick response from the normally lethargic administration that took weeks to figure out that it should be doing something about the gulf oil spill. Barack Hussein Obama has developed a reputation for being thin skinned and unable to handle criticism well. In this case, he had a legal and moral excuse for his speedy retribution. Yet in doing so, he found himself in the awkward situation of having to call back into service Bush’s man, David Petraeus whom he set aside for his hand picked replacement, McChrystal – one of the few service personnel who actually admitted voting for his boss.

Many see right and wrong as the primary determinant of appropriate actions. To this thinking, consequences are secondary to doing what is right. If the General sees that the President is incompetent, then it is his duty to speak up. To not do so, would mean he was falling short of upholding his oath to protect our country against all enemies, both foreign and domestic. For some, the question of proper time and place is irrelevant. As with the opposing view, those with the most virulent distaste for the resident of the White House tend to let these feelings color their evaluation.

So what is the right course through this maze of political intrigue? First of all, while it is never wrong to do the right thing, sometimes we have to use the common sense our creator gave us in choosing the proper time and place. At times, we will be prompted to go against our common sense, and because we don’t always have the big picture, it may be the right thing to do… we just need to be as certain as possible that it is a divine prompting and not just our own impatience or, worse yet, a push from the other side.

There are times we know there will be consequences to our actions, and we must weigh the benefits of our choice against the cost. Does this mean that just because there is a price to pay we pull back. I believe our forefathers would be calling to us from the past telling us “Never!”, chief among them, the likes of Nathan Hale.

While I question why any military leader with at least half a brain would give the Rolling Stone the time of day, I appreciate the honesty McChrystal displayed, if not his wisdom. The thing is that this man saw up close and personal the presidential leading us down the path of destruction. To a soldier trained to focus on and accomplish the mission at hand to work under the direction of a President without a firm understanding of the world around us and how to deal with it, must have been exceedingly aggravating. It could be he just slipped, or the thought crossed my mind that consciously or unconsciously he may have seen his actions as the only way out of a no win situation. He was not given the resources he asked for and his hands were tied in so many other ways, yet he was responsible for the success or failure of the mission, which by all appearances does not include victory. Each of us has a breaking point, perhaps the General had reached his. In any case he is no longer responsible for executing and ill defined foreign policy and seeing our young men and women dying as a result.

Perhaps now he can say “Mission accomplished”.