When Generals Go Off the Reservation

post from The Omnipotent Poobah Speaks! on 03 November 2009 07:08:00 PM. © The Omnipotent Poobah Speaks!

Who's the Boss - Regardless of whether top military brass agree with the President's policies, the public square isn't the place to air their disagreements. Generals advise and carry policies out, they don't set them.

For the second time in as many months, a General has publicly questioned the policies of his Commander-in-Chief. This time, Marine Corps Commandant Gen. James Conway expressed his displeasure with Obama?s desire to abandon Don?t Ask, Don?t Tell (DADT). Whether you agree or disagree with DADT, the standoff underlines a larger problem and sets a potentially dangerous precedent.

There?s nothing wrong with generals having advice for the C-in-C. They can, and should, candidly advise the President about policy decisions and the policies? implications. There are few decisions a President makes that are more important than military ones and he should not make them in a vacuum. However, as Constitutional Commander of the military he?s under no obligation to follow the advice the generals give him.

There?s no bone to pick with Conway expressing opposition to the President?s policies. He had advice and they offered it. There?s not even anything wrong with expressing it ?colorfully? ? as long as they do it privately. To do otherwise can send a confused signal to potential adversaries and blur the Constitutional line between setting policy and conducting military operations.

The military and White House have a long tradition of handling disagreements privately. When they haven?t ? like Douglas MacArthur and Harry Truman?s Korean WR disagreements ? the President has ?reminded? the General who?s in charge. That?s how MacArthur found himself first being called ?former general?.

To put it another way, if a general?s subordinate publicly questioned his orders (or even in some cases, privately) there?d be hell to pay. There?s a word for this behavior ? insubordination. If the breach was bad enough there might even be grounds for a treason charge.

Many opponents of DADT cite maintaining good discipline and unit cohesion as reasons to leave the policy be. Obama, in repeatedly allowing the public criticism, is undermining exactly the thing the generals cite for bucking DADT. When soldiers don?t understand who?s giving the orders there can?t be good discipline or cohesion ? instead, you?ve created the world?s most powerfully armed gang and left it to be run by a general under the mistaken impression he can do as he pleases.

Obama is apparently under the mistaken impression that tolerance and consensus building is more important than his policies. He seems not to realize the military isn?t a democracy so he handles DADT as an unwanted distraction from his domestic agenda. In the end, he alienates his party?s liberal faction while giving ammo to his political opponents to harass him on the domestic front ? bipartisanship at its worst.

The sad part is this could?ve been avoided had Bill Clinton taken a harder stance with the generals then under his command. Because of his reluctance to give clear orders to the generals and Congress, we ended up with DADT ? a wishy-washy compromise that satisfied no one and muddied the waters to boot.

Retired Air Force Colonel Dick Klass has said, “Clinton’s mistake was to call the Chiefs into the Oval Office and ask them what they thought about gays in the military. What Clinton should have done, and what Obama should do, is call the Chiefs in, explain that repealing the ban is a matter of national security, and tell them that if they are uncomfortable with that, they should resign.”

My sentiments exactly.