Generals and magazines; maybe not such a good mix?

General Stanley McChrystal

General Stanley McChrystal got sacked today. I wonder if he expected any differently as he came home for his face-to-face meeting with President Obama? I haven’t read the interview with Rolling Stone magazine that got him fired, but reportedly his comments (or his staff's comments) about the Commander in Chief and the CinC’s staff were derogatory.

This country has a love-hate relationship with its military arms – and they with us. One of our greatest strengths is we keep control of our military, and one of our greatest weaknesses is the same. If you want to go to war, you should leave the conduct of said war to the ones who know how to prosecute it. Give them their objective, then get the hell out of the way and let them do the job. Military historians could name literally dozens of examples of how and when political interference with our war machine resulted in near losses, outright losses and losses that only looked like wins – dating right back to the Revolution and possibly before. We haven't learned that lesson yet.

That said, our generals and all other soldiers owe their allegiance to the Commander in Chief and the civilian government of this nation, without question, when the orders come down from the Big House.  All of us who ever served have taken that oath, and most of us know  exactly what it means. Some of our very best soldiers have gotten themselves into hot water by running their mouths publicly about their opinions. George Custer comes instantly to mind, among others.

But... it is generally stupid to sack a great military leader, strategist or tactician because he stuck his boot in his mouth – provided the mouth and the military genius can be kept estranged. Not if you want to win battles and wars, anyway. 

One great example of how to “manage” such a conundrum comes to us courtesy of Dwight Eisenhower, Walter Bedell Smith and Omar Bradley, back in 1944. They had a military genius on their hands, the consummate warrior, but one who could not keep his sometimes inappropriate comments on political matters (and many other topics) to himself. Not only that, his behavior was often overly-dramatic and over-the-top. 

But the generals who supervised him recognized his immense value and worked (sometimes struggled) to keep him involved in the war while controlling his self-destructive outbursts and managing the fall-out when they failed.  If President Obama thinks he has troubles with a few comments this present general made to a magazine, one time, just think of the frustrations those WWII leaders had with the flamboyant, hard-charging "speak before-you-think" General George Patton -- because he caused political furors many times. Considering what happened afterwards, aren’t we glad FDR ultimately left the matter up to his very-capable military commanders?

Their eventual solution (whether it was expediency or brilliance) was to make Patton think he was through; they sidelined him for a time.  At the same time this comeuppance (and subterfuge) worked to the Allies’ advantage because the Germans couldn’t believe he was not involved in planning the European invasion at the highest command levels.  That mistake diverted their attention from the real preparations for D-Day going on elsewhere. After all, he was our best, they thought, so they watched him carefully -- but he was "just" a decoy in the months leading up to the Normandy invasion.

About the time Georgie's humiliation and “exile” put him at rock bottom, thinking he was going to miss the rest of the war and the opportunities it offered for the professional soldier, they gave him post-D-Day command of the Third Army and turned him loose on fortress Europe. His accomplishments and those of his soldiers outshone virtually every other command at our disposal. He ran riot across Europe and practically could have met the Russians on Russian soil had he not been stopped by the prudence of his commanders (who had him change direction, against his wishes). 

According to his biographers, he won more battles and covered and captured more ground than any other Army in that entire conflict. But he almost got sacked before he could do any of that. What a credit to Eisenhower’s judgment and that of his staff that they didn’t make that mistake. Ultimately, after the war was over, he got relieved of his command when his political liabilities overwhelmed his value -- with the war over, his tactical military prowess and leadership abilities were no longer needed.

I don’t know a lot about this current General’s capabilities or record. I hear he was successful in Iraq and Afghanistan up until he got sacked, and I have heard that he is a very thoughtful and intelligent commander. I don't know what he was thinking. I do think he must have been aware that he was throwing his career in the dumpster, as that now-infamous interview progressed.  How could he have thought otherwise?

However, I hope the president considered all the potentials and weighed his decision carefully, with an eye on the lessons of history, before he decided to accept General McChrystal’s resignation. A lot can depend on him having made the right choice.  I think military matters are mostly best left to the military.