Sir, Yes Sir!

The recent comments attributed to General Stanley Allen McChrystal USA, who shares a birthday with me (seven years earlier), have
 blanketed the news cycle for the past 24 hours. Reading comments by others on Facebook and more importantly those of our leaders as reported on news programs, has prompted me to share my comments on this issue. 

GEN Stanley McChrystal. File Photo.

As a Marine--no longer in uniform--I believe that you have a chain of command and you must respect it; both up and down. It is true that once you take an oath to defend this country, you lose some of the very rights you prepare to defend; namely freedom of speech. You cannot allow open disrespect or insubordination from subordinates. This creates a situation that can quickly become out of control. If you do not like a commander and you hear others berating him/her, then perhaps you are slow to fulfill their orders, and finally do not obey them at all. Anyone in uniform who leads men/women must never under any circumstances speak or act with disdain towards superiors publicly. This is even more important as you gain rank—either on your sleeve or collar—because you have greater influence. If the comments that were reported in Rolling Stone magazine are both accurate and in the correct context, then GEN McChrystal sealed his own fate several months ago. 

I do not know the situation or the circumstances surrounding Michael Hastings camping out with McChrystal and his staff in Paris, or what the guidelines were for reporting. When you have a group of individuals who work closely together and are even separated in rank by a couple of grades, you become close and share things. Generals/Admirals especially 4-stars have a full staff that accompanies them everywhere; within that group is the inner circle with whom the General/Admiral becomes extremely close. These are people he/she has served with and respects and wants their talents and skills supporting his/her endeavors. Is it possible that the group of men while waiting for the sky to clear of volcanic ash and dust accepted Hastings and became “friendly” with him and therefore let their guard down? I think this is a possibility. Could the group have assumed unless they say “on the record” other comments were to be treated as “off the record”? That too is a possibility. I could see where something like that occurred and they did not think much about it. Only a few of the comments were attributed to GEN McChrystal, the others were unnamed staff. Even so, the General should have been more media savvy and exercised more self-control. 

It has been reported that GEN McChrystal voted for President Obama, and therefore shared some of the same political beliefs. It is obvious from all the reports last year regarding the troop increase request he, General David Howell Petraeus, USA (US Cent Com), and Admiral Michael Glenn Mullen, USN (CJCS) do not agree with the Obama plan for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. President Obama was determined not to let his generals run the war, but rather assert his authority as Commander-in-Chief (CIC) and make the decisions on how the war was to be fought. I have no problem with civilian leadership of the military—it is a good thing—however, the CIC must with the military input develop, design, and deploy a strategy for the war(s). If so, then he should give the military everything it asks for in its quest to complete the mission. This situation is the crux of the matter and it is not being discussed. The civilian leadership for these wars is not respected by the military men/women who are fighting the wars. There is a huge chasm between the current administration and the military. I believe some of what the General and his staff were attributed as saying is coming from the deep, nagging anger that the administration does not “get it”. They do not believe this administration cares for the military, and as the General stated in London several months ago, the solution offered by Vice-President Biden is “shortsighted”, aka stupid and unworkable. As a reminder, the VP wanted to fight Al Qaeda with drones and SF troops. GEN McChrystal has been in special operations since his commissioning. He was first assigned to the 82nd Airborne and three years later volunteered for Special Forces (SF). Since then he has served in special ops as a shooter/operator and worked/commanded S2/S3 and G2/G3 (Intelligence/Operations both at Unit and Division level). For the past 30 years, he ran most of the Black Ops our military has taken part in. So, as an “operator,” one would think he would embrace an all-SF war unless he believed it would fail. 

While there remains a disconnect between this Administration and the military men/women, and there are diverse views on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, President Obama did the right thing and accepted GEN McChrystal’s resignation. You cannot allow this public dissension among the ranks. I hope President Obama allows for frank disagreement behind closed doors and gives the appropriate respect to the men and women who wear a uniform, pick up a rucksack, and carry a rifle to start their day at work. A good commander will ask for input and suggestions from his subordinates and welcome opposing views and ideas. However, once a decision is made and you walk outside and an order is given, your only response is “Sir, Yes Sir!” To set a good example President Obama must not allow his office, his aides, and his administration to speak negatively of the commanders in the field if they do not agree with his decision. I urge you to read Jonathon Alter’s book The Promise which was recently released. Alter is a far-left writer for Newsweek and also a Chicagoan who had unfettered access to the President and his staff while researching for this book. As I said earlier, respect goes both up and down the chain of command.