Should Obama have fired McChrystal?
When is dissent appropriate?
General Stanley McChrystal has become President Obama’s MacArthur, as MacArthur was to President Truman: McChrystal failed (dramatically) to keep his frustrations and criticisms private, opening up a rift with the administration. The result? He was sacked.
There are a number of reasons to agree with the president’s decision. Obama needed to avoid creating the sort of situation that Truman found himself in when dealing with the insubordinate MacArthur in 1951. And although he is popular with public populations throughout the world, the president’s international reputation with the leaders of allies and enemies (and therefore his foreign policy initiatives in general) could be damaged.
A lack of confidence in his command and management could also be disastrous, in a number of ways. For example, the new troops entering Afghanistan by September have to show evidence of success in the region before a congressional review in December, and the troops leaving Iraq need to do so responsibly and orderly – but both tasks would be made much more difficult if Obama cannot do away with division and insubordination.
In explaining his dismissal of General McChrystal, President Obama said he was not motivated by hurt feelings or even their disagreement over policy. Instead, he said, McChrystal’s behavior “undermines the civilian control of the military that is at the core of our democratic system.”
This statement, the fact that the dismissal was not in response to dissent itself, and Obama’s reported history of encouraging debate amongst his advisors, suggests yet another reason for Obama to fire the general: some sorts of dissent, even for this president, may be bad.
This final reason raises a number of questions, all of which revolve around the role of free speech and the boundaries of healthy debate within a democratic society. When is dissent inappropriate? Are there special rules about expressing opinion for members who are, in some way, outside of normal civil society (like bureaucrats, and military personnel)? What sorts of sanctions, if any, can or should legitimately be applied to those who dissent incorrectly? When is it costly to exercise free speech?
You may have some ready answers if you have read anything by John Stuart Mill on these subjects. But, regardless of your knowledge of Mill, McChrystal the inopportune dissenter is gone.
We will have to wait to see what sort of precedent this sets for the administration, how it effects the implementation of policy hereafter, and what else we can glean from examining the administration’s continued explanations of this move.
-Jonathan
Related posts:
- Is it unfair to televise an Obama speech?
- Obama and Afghanistan
- Obama the dictator?
- Obama on the American character
- Obama & international relations
ShareComments
One Response to “Should Obama have fired McChrystal?”
Leave a Reply
Seems to me that there is perhaps a distinct difference between dissent and contempt. in my opinion dissent can usually be tolerated, and heard, when offered in a manner suitable to the situation & personalities involved; whereas contempt is always difficult to hear and watch. Military Officers, especially Senior or “Flag Officers” are counselled on this point very often, and especially during their transition to Flag Officers. what’s the C.Churchill and later Shakespeare line: discretion is better part of valor… JB