From www.washingtonpost.com
A General Within Bounds
By Michael O'Hanlon
Some might agree with all this yet say that McChrystal still had no business wading into policy waters at this moment. It is true that commanders, as a rule, should not do so. But when truly bad ideas or those already tried and discredited are debated as serious proposals, they do not deserve intellectual sanctuary. McChrystal is personally responsible for the lives of 100,000 NATO troops who are suffering severe losses partially as a result of eight years of a failed counterterrorism strategy under a different name. He has a right to speak if a policy debate becomes too removed from reality. Put another way, we need to hear from him because he understands this reality far better than most in Washington.
O'Hanlon argues that it is Gen. Stanley McChrystal's obligation, nay duty, by God!, duty!, to publicly challenge the Constitution of the United States (ya know the bit about how civilians decide where when and how the military act), the chain of command, and ultimately the Commander-in-Chief. His most powerful argument for the general's right to do this is that he is responsible for 100,000 U.S. and NATO forces. Well, Mikey, guess who's responsible for the safety and welfare of all the men and women who serve this country?
It seems that O'Hanlon like General McChrystal have either never heard of, or have forgotten what happened to a five-star general who challenged the authority of the president.
General Douglas MacArthur challenged his Commander-in-Chief, President Harry Truman. Truman wasted no time in recalling MacArthur and informing him that his services were no longer required. Firing MacArthur, who had been lionized and idolized as the savior of America in winning the war in the Pacific during WWII (to hear MacArthur tell it, he did it all by himself), was an act of great courage on Truman's part. The outrage it generated went as far as members of Congress calling for Truman's impeachment.
But Truman's steadfast defense of civilian control of the military, a principle as old as the nation itself could not be challenged or dismissed.
Many of the Founding Fathers of the United States subscribed to this suspicious assessment of the virtues of standing militaries; as Samuel Adams wrote in 1768, "Even when there is a necessity of the military power, within a land, a wise and prudent people will always have a watchful and jealous eye over it" [5]. Even more forceful are the words of Elbridge Gerry, a delegate to the American Constitutional Convention, who stated that
[s]tanding armies in time of peace are inconsistent with the principles of republican Governments, dangerous to the liberties of a free people, and generally converted into destructive engines for establishing despotism.
It would behoove both gentleman to brush up on their history.