Bruce Ackerman, distinguished professor of law or something like that at Yale, writes in the Washington Post: A General's Public Pressure By Bruce AckermanSaturday, October 3, 2009 2002 The president, the Constitution tells us, is the commander in chief. But is it true? In a speech in London on Thursday, Gen. Stanley McChrystal Eric Shinseki publicly intervened in the debate over Afghanistan Iraq. Vice President Biden Cheney has suggested that we focus on fighting al-Qaeda removing Saddam Hussein and refrain from using our troops to prop up the government of President Hamid Karzai sending many hundreds of thousands of troops into Iraq to prevent looting of their shitty pieces of clay from their shitty museums. But when this strategic option was raised at his presentation, McChrystal Shinseki said it was a formula for "Chaos-istan." "Iraq-nophobia." When asked whether he would support it, he said, "The short answer is: No." As commanding general in Afghanistan Chief of Staff of the Army, McChrystal Shinseki has no business making such public pronouncements. Under law, he doesn't have the right to attend the National Security Council as it decides our strategy. To the contrary, the Goldwater-Nichols Act of 1986 explicitly names the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff as the National Security Council's exclusive military adviser. If the president wanted McChrystal's Shinseki's advice, he was perfectly free to ask him to accompany Adm. Mike Mullen Gen. Hugh Shelton, chairman of the Joint Chiefs, when the council held its first meeting on Afghanistan Iraq this week. But Obama Bush did not extend the invitation, even though McChrystal Shinseki was leaving Kabul and could have gone to Washington easily. Instead, Obama Bush asked the general to report to the council via a brief teleconference. News of McChrystal's Shinseki's position had been leaked to Bob Woodward and was published in The Post early last week. But it is one thing for some nameless Washington insider to engage in a characteristic power play; quite another for McChrystal Shinseki to pressure the president in public to adopt his strategy. This is a plain violation of the principle of civilian control. McChrystal Shinseki seemed curiously blind to this point. He emphasized that the president had "encouraged" him to be blunt when making his grim report on Afghanistan Iraq. But future presidents won't be so encouraging if they know that their commanders might create political problems if they think that their recommendations will be overruled. Instead, they will insist that their commanders tell them only what they want to hear. Confidentiality is a condition for candid communications between commanders and the commander in chief. McChrystal was almost cavalier in dismissing this point. After praising his superiors for encouraging straight talk, he laughingly suggested that "they may change their minds and crush me some day." This is precisely backward: Generals shouldn't need to be told that it is wrong to lecture their presidents in public. Perhaps McChrystal Shinseki was misled by the precedent set by Gen. David Petraeus Wesley Clark, who strongly supported President Bush's Clinton's military surge in Iraq Bosnia in 2007 1996. Though Petraeus Clark publicly endorsed the surge, this happened only after Bush Clinton made his decision. Petraeus Clark was backing up his commander in chief, not trying to preempt him. Nevertheless, precedents have the habit of adding up. Unless McChrystal Shinseki publicly recognizes that he has crossed the line, future generals will become even more aggressive in their efforts to browbeat presidents. We have no need for a repeat of the showdown between President Harry Truman and Gen. Douglas MacArthur over Korea. Truman faced down his general the last time around, but it was a bruising experience. Though McChrystal may feel "crushed," he should show more self-restraint. Indeed, his breach should provoke a broader discussion of the meaning of civilian control in the 21st century. It may well make sense for the Pentagon, or a special commission, to frame more concrete guidelines so that we may avoid future breaches.
Read the complete post at http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/Blackfive/~3/ggJZj4nyUEc/bruce-ackerman-hack-law-professor.html
Posted
Oct 04 2009, 04:23 PM
by
BLACKFIVE