Leave General McChrystal alone!

The political chatter of the week is quickly coalescing around U.S. General Stanley McChrystal, who last week publicly stated his support for a large troop increase in the war in Afghanistan and his belief that a more narrow approach that does not revolve around ensuring political stability, as has apparently been advocated by the Vice President's office, will not be effective in securing the U.S.'s strategic interests in the region. Much of the published opinion has been critical of McChrystal, with at least one commentator going so far as to dub it a "plain violation of the principle of civilian control." The idea, it seems, is that McChrystal is trying to force Obama's hand into giving him what he wants through press leaks and public pronouncements.

I'm skeptical. McChrystal's job isn't to avoid having a professional opinion on the conduct of the military operation that he is in charge of overseeing, and he isn't required to refrain from sharing his professional opinion with others, except, I suppose, in cases where it would threaten the operational security of his stated mission. Rather, McChrystal's job is to obey the orders of the commander-in-chief, Barack Obama. As far as I can tell, he hasn't disobeyed an executive order or even communicated an intent to do so. All he's done is state a tactical preference based on his analysis of the situation. If Obama doesn't like how he's behaving, he's free to relieve him of his command, as presidents have frequently done to military generals throughout U.S. history.

Yes, McChrystal's comments go against the grain of chain-of-command protocol as it's typically understood, and yes, it's hardly good decorum to put your boss on the spot. But, as is so often the case, what's bad for discipline and protocol is good for American democracy. Lest we forget, American men and women are currently on Afghan soil putting their lives at stake in this conflict, with the potential of more joining them depending on the decisions made. Let's also remember former General Eric Shinseki, who Donald Rumsfeld threw under the bus in the George W. Bush days for having the sheer balls to suggest that the U.S. bring enough ground troops into the invasion of Iraq to maintain order in the country. The American people didn't get the benefit of the full debate then. I'm not about to argue that they should be denied it now.

All this isn't to say that Obama has to take McChrystal's advice. There's no telling whether or not he's even right about Afghanistan. After all, if the Iraqi people had greeted the U.S. invasion with party hats and kazoos, like Bill Kristol promised, and begun throwing Sunni/Shiite get-to-know-you block parties as soon as that statue of Saddam hit the concrete, no one outside of a few military historians would even know who Eric Shinseki is right now. Obama's the President, and the decision is his alone to make based on the facts and strategic objectives as he sees them. Does he expose himself to more potential criticism because of McChrystal's statements? You bet. But that's the burden of leadership.

I'm a strong Obama supporter, and I genuinely don't know what the best course of action in Afghanistan is at this juncture. I trust him to weigh the alternatives and make an appropriate choice. But I also expect him to be open and accountable to the American people about the reasoning behind that decision, and having this discussion take place in the public sphere will only serve to motivate that transparency. Obama's supporters don't owe him any protection from the political risk that tough decisions entail. We'd be better served by advocating our own views and values, whatever they may be, in hopes of having our own influence on the outcome (advocates of full withdrawal are probably in for lean times on this front).

And if things don't go well, maybe in 2012 we'll wind up with President Mitt Romney, aka the only American executive to preside over a government that's both legalized gay marriage and mandated universal healthcare.