More News

Musings on McChrystal

Chuck Lyons' column in the July 7 issue of The Gazette regarding the firing of U.S. Army Gen. Stanley McChrystal ["Still searching for the right kind of authority"] could have gone a step or two further, considering this country's military history.

Much of the news media misused the term "insubordination" as the rationale for President Obama's action. In the military, that term means "failure to disobey an order from a superior." In point of fact, there is no evidence Obama, as commander in-chief of the armed forces, ever issued an order which McChrystal disobeyed. Rather, it was a political decision because the general "dissed" a number of high ranking civilian officials, including the president. Obama was elected only as president; only by law did he also become the commander in-chief.

That technicality aside, there are two aspects of the president's action that were not covered in Lyons' otherwise interesting column. (I heartily agree the general should have kept his lips zipped with intemperate remarks.)

One aspect is military reaction. True, McChrystal was not universally loved by his troops. But then, rarely is any officer so treated. Command is a lonely and impersonal job. But, ironically, the mission in the Middle East stems from Obama down through the military chain of command.

However, no sooner had Gen. David Petraeus, McChrystal's superior, taken over than a "new mission" has been announced. Boots on the ground soldiers must be confused about yet another such change. Petraeus' new assignment actually is a downgrade, because now he has to report to Marine Gen. James Mattis, whom he outranks by some half a year according to dates of commission.

By the way, Mattis was officially reprimanded in 2005 for intemperate remarks in a San Diego speech, but not fired. So, was firing McChrystal the president's only option, or was it a political decision? The firing was not because he did not carry out his mission, but because he criticized the mission's implementers. Having said that, it certainly is the commander in-chief's decision to take the action he did for the reasons he stated.

The other aspect is historical. President Lincoln removed generals during the Civil War essentially for failure to command. President Roosevelt removed generals, especially the irascible Gen. George Patton. President Truman removed the only five-star general in Douglas MacArthur because he openly criticized the president for not allowing our troops to cross the North Korean border into China.

Of all the ironies, when MacArthur returned to the United States, he was given a hero's welcome via a ticker-tape parade in the heart of New York City. Further, he was permitted to address an unprecedented joint session of Congress to give his famous "old soldiers never die; they just fade away" ending.

One last bit of controversy involving McChrystal and virtually ignored by many. It was McChrystal who signed off on the Silver Star for U.S. Army Ranger Pat Tillman, the professional football player who turned down a lucrative salary to enlist so he could fight in Afghanistan. At first, his death was termed heroism. Afterward, it was discovered Tillman was killed by friendly fire. McChrystal later was transferred and promoted.

David H. Brown, North Bethesda

McChrystal deserved what he got

Chuck Lyons' column in the July 7 Gazette ["Still searching for the right kind of authority"] left me more than a little disappointed. He bemoans our country "reeling" from what to me is the natural, yet highly complex and multilayered ebb and flow of a war that is different from any other we have fought and that was virtually ignored for years. What else should we expect from a war that has had top presidential and military focus for barely more than a year?

And his "worry" over the U.S. Army Gen. Stanley McChrystal sacking is way off base: it wasn't about authority. Lyons' analogy to other government servants is ludicrous. Disgruntled employees in the Treasury, Federal Reserve, Office of Management and Budget, and others, bear no resemblance to an insubordinate general in the field, commanding a war far from home. You can be sure that McChrystal, a 1976 West Point graduate, knew immediately upon hearing of the Rolling Stone article that he would be relieved.

I have known many generals. Along with all the wonderful positive attributes they bring forward, they have big egos with a dose of arrogance thrown in. Most of them know how to balance all that. Clearly, McChrystal did not, lost his head, and deserved what he got.

Walter Ligon, Silver Spring