Should Americans hear directly what's on a general's mind?
Posted at 5:00 AM on June 23, 2010
by Eric Ringham
(30 Comments)
Filed under: International affairs, Politics/Government, Security
The commander in charge of the Afghanistan war is in trouble for being openly critical of the Obama administration. Today's Question: Should Americans hear directly what's on a general's mind?
Comments (30)
Fell out of bed fneelig down. This has brightened my day!
Those folks who are comparing President Bush to Hitler are being extremely unpatriotic! Oh, wait a minute..... I forgot, Bush isn't president anymore. Never mind. Obama is fair game for that sort of thing, I guess. That is, as long as you're okay with being a hypocrite.
YES. If he believes it's in our country's best interest.
Lord knows the DC press corps aren't going to criticize their Fuhrer.
. . . . .Sieg hail everyone.
You might read the Rolling Stone article, it is available on CSPAN.Comm. The reporter should never had several days to follow the General around. The author of the article seem more interested in showing the General and his staff in a bad light than writing a informative piece on the General activities in his office. The President had no choice but to replace him because of the adverse public opinion, but we are losing a good military man.
As americans we have the right to hear what is said in public, which includes on-the-record statements to reporters.
It is the general's duty to do everything possible toward the success of his mission. Being a public leader, this includes making public statements to motivate and garner goodwill. If his statements foment discord among his forces and allies, that is a failure.
We should hear what a general has to say. He should chose carefully what to say publicly.
War is too important to be left to the generals.
-- Georges Clemenceau
He should not be sharing his disagreements with the president publicly. Insubordination allowed to persist by a general fosters it among the ranks. He should not be allowed to continue having expresed his personal policy differneces opinions disagreements with His commander should be kept between them only.
If Obama does not fire him it will be a travesty and show the president as weak.
If the General wants to blow off some steam or say his candid opinions on the current administration he better do it when there isn't a journalist around. As it was suggested on air this morning "Don't let your hammered aids talk to the media". Everyone has their rights to free speech and their opinions, you just have to deal with how they are expressed.
Absolutely not. General McChrystal already has all of the support of the very powerful military-industrial complex. He has no business attempting to sway public opinion to support military action, or to pressure the President.
If you are in the military, the President is the boss. He is the Commander in Chief. If I complained about the CEO of my company to Rolling Stone, I would be out the door very quickly. This is how we prevent military coup's in America.
Probably not for about two or three reasons: 1) during war, public arguments with the general and the President makes America look divided; 2) most of the information about the war is under some national security act, which means nobody, the general included, is giving the public accurate details about war decisions made by the President; 3) while the drama makes for good ratings, the best deals are often done with cameras turned off, therefore, the general should have approached this behind closed doors so that he could better get what he wanted. All this aside, the two biggest problems America is having with this war in particular is they don't have a clearly defined objective of what they are fighting for, and there is a big lack of knowledge when it comes to understanding the culture of the people we are fighting against. Ironically, these were the same problems America had in Vietnam.
If our elected politicians don't have the fortitude to make good decisions and then our boots on the ground military calls it like they see them.
Do you shoot the messenger??
I think we should get out of camel jockey land and protect our borders.
DTOM
Military officials are welcome to share their views with the public. If they feel the need to contradict their commander in chief if in conscience they cannot do otherwise, then they must do so but be prepared to deal with the consequences. I think public officials, including generals, do not take enough risks to support their positions, so they can keep their nice jobs and not make any waves. Unfortunately, that leads to the lowest common denominator and a bunch of talking heads spewing meaningless drivel, which serves the interests of nobody.
If we allow generals to be involved in politics, then we risk becoming like Turkey or Pakistan; where the military had removed civilian elected governments. It is very important for our democracy to keep the military away from politics.
NO. The general needs to keep his mouth shut! He's got one of the most import and responsible jobs in the WORLD. If his boss is an idiot, he'd got to bite his tongue and shut up, especially in the presence of media like Rolling Stone, who hate the military and the mission and are just waiting to print something that makes the mission or military look bad.
No, the General should have privately addressed his concerns with the President and his advisors in a respectful manner. It shows not only poor judgement on his part but also insubordination. President Obama is the Commander in Chief and General McChrystal is coordinating a war that is not going well right now. Instead of pointing fingers, he and his staff should be working to determine and implement strategies that would bring about an end to this war.
Retired/fired generals can surely speak their mind. However, current "sitting" generals shouldn't. Too much is at risk. Don't think our enemies don't know about this story now.
Who knows, maybe he wants to get fired. George Castanza would be proud of the way this guy goes down.
Sure, as long as it is substantive. Complaining about your boss and co-workers not so much. Any other person would either be formally repremanded or lose their job for insebordination. Either way you can always say whatever you wish just dont be surprised at the consequences.
If you publicly criticized and ridiculed your boss and colleagues in public, would you be relieved of your job? This is not a free speech issue. This is about employment and the Military Code of Conduct.
Those in the military serve their country, not their President. It is the job of the Pentagon to confront the President over military issues. If this General had some valid issues he should have used the chain of command as every one else in the military has to do. Apparently the rest of the Pentagon did not agree with this Generals assessment.
While his comments were certainly in poor taste, I think he is within his rights to say whatever he wants. It is always hard to know where to draw the line on freedom of speech. I just wish he knew better than to do something showing such poor judgment.
I feel pretty uncomfortable having a general with such poor judgement and foresight of the fallout from his statements running a war! He was a proponant for continuing the war. Could that also be poor judgement?
Rolling Stone? Really? If the General has criticisms and concerns, this was the best venue he could find to bring those to the President's attention? It is not that I discount his experiences or criticisms, but Rolling Stone?
Freedom of speech doesnt apply to a genral, private, or any other soldier. All he did was show his own subordanites they can question his own orders. I served for six years and cant believe this gen said what he did.
This is nothing new. Harry Truman was harshly criticized in 1951 when he fired the very popular Gen. McArthur under similar circumstances, but the consensus of military historians is that he was right to do so.
No, he has to follow the civilian leadership decisions. As a former enlisted person, I was an E-5, find it hard to believe a General does not know that. I was in the Air Force for 9.5 years and in the Gulf War, when I signed up I made a conscious decision to follow the President no matter who was in office or which party controlled the Presidency or Congress.
I am a recently returned from Kuwait member of the United States Navy, and one of the things most people in the civilian sector don't understand is that we sign certain rights away when we enlist. One is that we do not get to voice a political opinion AS a military service member. We do not represent the branch of service we serve, nor do we get to act like we do. This also does and NEEDS to apply to generals.
For example, Former President Bush was NOT my president, but when I was on duty and in uniform he WAS my Commander-in-Chief. That is how the system works. The general public should absolutely not be hearing from the Generals and their staff directly except as directed during a specific briefing.
I would think General would have the most accurate take on how this war is being managed. His duty to the American people comes before his duty to any one individual. I would like to hear what he has to say.
I am most concerned about the soldiers who fight this war and I want to know the President's policies are worth the loss of life and time away from family that these Americans suffer.
I do think that the General should have tendered his resignation prior to any public statements. However, even as a General, he is an American and has a right to free speech. We are fortunate in that we don't have to beg permission to enjoy this right.
No, he should just salute sharply and do his job. This guy let his ego get ahead of him. It is also possible he wanted to be relieved, after all, he is the architect of a no way to win war.
Though I believe Obama and his advisors do not have a clue about the two wars or the economy, it is a slippery slope once the generals publicly oppose the civilian politial leaders. If he wants to critisize, resign and become a civilian but not a good idea as a general.
| June 2010 | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| S | M | T | W | T | F | S |
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | ||
| 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 |
| 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 |
| 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | |||
Master Archive
Recent Entries
- Have changes to the airline passenger experience affected your willingness to fly?
- Should marijuana be available for medical use in Minnesota?
- Do the struggles of Minnesota's business icons signal trouble for the state's economy?
- Do you know whether insurance would cover your losses in a major storm?
- What kind of recycling program would you be likely to use the most?
- Would you support paying people for organ or tissue donations?
- Have personal relationships in the workplace ever presented a problem for you?
- Do you think Facebook is a passing fad?
- Will you be less likely to visit the Minnesota Zoo without its dolphins?
- Should authorities in the Twin Cities change the way they warn people about tornadoes?
Public Insight Network
The Public Insight Network draws upon your experiences to help shape our coverage.More
Categories
Services
In The Spotlight
-
Sound Learning
Looking for ways to ensure your students are doing quality research from credible sources? Sound Learning is a launching point to Minnesota Public Radio's content on the Web. -
The Current Music Blog
Your daily note for good music, news and pop culture. With attempted jokes.
- Become a Member
- Member Connect Accounts
- Leadership Circle
- Sustaining Members
- Member Discounts
- Become a Sponsor
- Tax Information
- Planned Giving
- Vehicle Donation
- Donate Stock