Thoroughly debate McChrystal’s fate

That General Stanley McChrystal committed egregious, unprofessional
mistakes is beyond dispute: disdain for the vice president, unhappiness
with the president and frustration and anger with crucial civilian
colleagues — all to a reporter whom he welcomed into his headquarters
in circumstances inappropriate for public display.

Equally unfortunate, he allowed to develop a culture of arrogance and contempt for the civilian leadership in his staff — an atmosphere and attitudes altogether unbecoming for serious professional officers waging a dangerous, difficult, ambiguous war — unacceptable in any military leader in peacetime or in war. If the Rolling Stone article is at all accurate, then McChrystal spoke openly of his vote for president. If officers choose to vote and risk partisan thinking and identification in their own minds, they ought at least to keep their voting and their choice strictly private. Otherwise, the military will not remain non-partisan and apolitical.

{mosads}The question is whether he should be relieved. Certainly the offenses justify it, for civilian control of the military is one of the foundational principles of American government, and it must be followed and respected in every word and deed by the military, from the very highest flag officer to the lowest ranking enlisted person.

But before he makes his decision, President Barack Obama must assemble all of the principals in his meeting Wednesday morning at the White House — not just his chief of staff and General McChrystal, but also Central Command Commander David Petraeus, and ambassadors Karl Eikenberry and Richard Holbrooke — and discuss at length, in great depth and with a degree of frankness, honesty and candor that will be painful on all sides, whether McChrystal can continue in command in Afghanistan.

The United States cannot prosecute this war successfully if the president cannot trust and respect the judgment and motives of his commander on the ground. And that officer cannot command or advise his superiors effectively if he cannot trust and respect his president. War in general, and this war in particular, are uncertain undertakings. Much that is unexpected and uncertain lies ahead, with crucial decisions that will affect American security many years into the future.

Both men need to look deeply into their souls and ponder long and hard into the night about whether they can continue the relationship. If not, then the general must go — quietly and respectfully on his part, and with generosity and honor from the president and his advisers. No personal embarrassment or political fallout could compare to the consequences of a dysfunctional civil-military relationship, for this war and for the general American government today and tomorrow.

Richard H. Kohn teaches military history at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. A specialist in civil-military relations, he was Chief of Air Force History for the USAF, 1981-1991.