See other Dead Constitution Articles
Title: McChrystal's Lesson: Trampling Constitution A-Okay, Using Mean Words Is Not
Source:
[None]
URL Source: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david ... ls-lesson-trampl_b_621689.html
Published: Jun 23, 2010
Author: David Sirota
Post Date: 2010-06-23 09:26:03 by Ada
Keywords: None
Views: 83
Comments: 4
Late last year and early this year, I wrote a series of syndicated newspaper columns (here and here) about how General Stanley McChrystal was permitted to effectively give orders to his commander-in-chief about what the Afghanistan war policy should and should not be. As I argued, this was a major affront to the spirit - if not the letter - of the constitution and the military's chain of command. And yet, at the time, few - if any - political voices called for McChrystal to be fired or to resign. Of course, after McChrystal was this week quoted in Rolling Stone personally disparaging various Obama administration officials, those calls for firing/resignation are everywhere, including from unnamed Obama administration sources, and they seem to have had an effect. This disparity in reactions to McChrystal's statements a year ago and today, then, gives us a very clear idea of what the Obama administration and the larger political/media class considers - and does not consider - a fireable offense. What we now know is that generals are fully permitted to publicly challenge the constitutional authority of the president and the elected civilian leadership of the United States. That is not a fireable offense. What is a fireable offense is a general using petty or mean language in describing the elected civilian leadership whose power he is unconstitutionally usurping. How can we explain this disparity? Shouldn't it be the other way around? Shouldn't it be an automatic fireable offense to defy the constitution, but a relatively minor offense to use mean language? Sure, it should. But it's not because Washington - as it is often accurately described - is truly one big high school, with each major political battle really a gossipy scuffle between cliques of Kool Kids. In that high school, the worst offenses aren't violations of the ironclad rules, but violations of interpersonal social etiquette. Indeed, you can freely violate the rules as long as you do it in a way that honors the etiquette. That is the real lesson of McChrsytal - according to the political class, his career mistake wasn't trampling democracy and destroying 200 years of constitutional tradition, it was simply being not very nice. In our corrupt political culture, that's the only transgression that's not allowed.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 4.
#1. To: Ada (#0)
It's not a question of who is right about strategy - McChrystal or Obama - it's a question of insubordination and confidence. Although McChrystal is supposed to give President the benefit of his expertise and advice, when the President, as Commander-in-Chief, makes a decision then McChrystal is supposed to support it and implement it as best he can without any sort of the public grumbling that demoralizes the troops or the public. In a more practical vein, McChrystal, instead of insisting on anonymity from the reporter (or going to another reporter who would give him anonymity), allowed himself to be quoted by name, putting his reputation and rank up against his C-in-C's in this difference of opinion. McChrystal has tendered his resignation but at this moment it's not clear if Obama has accepted it. Obama might simply put it aside and send McChrystal back to the front, thoroughly spanked and scolded. On the subject, it is a courtmartial offense to say disparaging things about one's superiors all the way up to the Prez. This is a longstanding military law and not just in the US. Dubya exploited this thoroughly by using pictures of uniformed soldiers in his campaign literature - for example, one instance where a group of servicemen in their best uniforms with medals were in the crowd apparently applauding a Bush campaign speech (in fact, this same group was photoshopped to appear three or four times in the same crowd in that picture); something absolutely illegal, as servicemen are not supposed to be in uniform for anything political. Dubya's handlers knew that Kerry couldn't do the same because any serviceman who openly declared a preference for someone other than the current C-in-C would find himself in trouble.
So where does that leave the MEXICON soldiers who are promised U.S. citizenship after their enlistment is up. Hypocrite.....
There are no replies to Comment # 4. End Trace Mode for Comment # 4.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#4. To: Shoonra (#1)
...servicemen are not supposed to be in uniform for anything political.
Replies to Comment # 4.