General McChrystal, the top U.S. war commander in Afghanistan, made remarks that insulted multiple people, President Obama among them. These remarks, through an approved press interview and aide's loose mouths, made it into Rolling Stone magazine. As you can imagine, those insulted were none to pleased. McChrystal has issued an apology and had been called to Washington to personally explain his remarks to the President. (I'd love to be in that meeting!)
While an interesting story, it brings to mind many other ones, all dealing with the same issue:
Military men (and women) vs. Washington (both politicians and higher-ranking military)
Criticism of both (former) President Bush and President Obama has been echoed from military personnel from generals down to E-1's and E-2's. (For those unfamiliar with military ranking, E-1's and E-2's are the lowest ranking personnel in the military). Higher-ranking officers have been complained about by lower-ranking personnel. Complaints cover a variety of issues, but mostly specific tactics, troop deployments (or lack thereof), and rules of engagement.
While the average person is covered by free speech, one can question whether those in the military, having the President as a commander-in-chief and having higher ranking officers over them, should be allowed to criticize official policy. They are, of course, required to follow those orders, but does that mean they cannot question them?
So, as always, questions for my readers:
Should military personnel be allowed to criticize the President's official policy and actions on war?
Should military personnel be allow to criticize higher-ranking officer's official policy and action on war?
Why or why not?
For those interested in my opinion, I honestly can't decide. While some criticism may point out valid concerns and things that need fixed; often, the lower-ranking personnel aren't privy to the "whole battle plan." What they may see as foolish may very well be an extremely intelligent feint in overall strategy.
An criticizing the President and higher-ranking officers in the mess hall (where they eat) is a bit different from having that same quote appear in a national magazine. Of course, one could then argue that McChrystal's statements weren't for public consumption and were simply banter among the troops.
Sources:
"McChrystal Apologizes for Remarks in Profile, Summoned to White House." Fox News. Link to article.
While an interesting story, it brings to mind many other ones, all dealing with the same issue:
Military men (and women) vs. Washington (both politicians and higher-ranking military)
Criticism of both (former) President Bush and President Obama has been echoed from military personnel from generals down to E-1's and E-2's. (For those unfamiliar with military ranking, E-1's and E-2's are the lowest ranking personnel in the military). Higher-ranking officers have been complained about by lower-ranking personnel. Complaints cover a variety of issues, but mostly specific tactics, troop deployments (or lack thereof), and rules of engagement.
While the average person is covered by free speech, one can question whether those in the military, having the President as a commander-in-chief and having higher ranking officers over them, should be allowed to criticize official policy. They are, of course, required to follow those orders, but does that mean they cannot question them?
So, as always, questions for my readers:
Should military personnel be allowed to criticize the President's official policy and actions on war?
Should military personnel be allow to criticize higher-ranking officer's official policy and action on war?
Why or why not?
For those interested in my opinion, I honestly can't decide. While some criticism may point out valid concerns and things that need fixed; often, the lower-ranking personnel aren't privy to the "whole battle plan." What they may see as foolish may very well be an extremely intelligent feint in overall strategy.
An criticizing the President and higher-ranking officers in the mess hall (where they eat) is a bit different from having that same quote appear in a national magazine. Of course, one could then argue that McChrystal's statements weren't for public consumption and were simply banter among the troops.
Sources:
"McChrystal Apologizes for Remarks in Profile, Summoned to White House." Fox News. Link to article.
