I have become increasingly disturbed by media reports that senior active-duty flag and general officers have spoken to reporters, on condition of anonymity, of their disagreements with the Obama administration’s policy regarding the war on terrorism. As to the merits of their disagreements, I likely would agree with most of them: misleading claims of victory, a flawed or absent strategy, and failure to forge and lead an effective alliance.
What bothers me is not the substance of what they are saying but the erosive effect not speaking for attribution has on the chain of command. There is only one person on top of that chain, and he is the Commander-in-Chief, whether you like him or not.
Our history is replete with flag and general officers, the vast majority of whom served with distinction and personal heroism under fire, failing to understand or respect this simple concept. Douglas MacArthur is the poster boy for this. He learned that even a “mere” one-time horse-drawn artillery captain named Harry S Truman outranked him. MacArthur’s public disagreements with Truman’s prosecution of the Korean War cost the general his job and fouled his reputation.
President Jimmy Carter had to fire Major General John Singlaub under similar circumstances. Most recently, President Barack Obama removed General Stanley McChrystal for indiscreet criticisms the general voiced to Rolling Stone magazine.
Some of the best minds in the United States serve in our armed forces. Their views are important, and they deserve to be heard. If they cannot speak out publicly, is their only recourse to speak from the shadows? I do not think this is a good solution. It fuels suspicion on the part of the civilian who sits in the White House that he cannot trust his military advisers. This has been widely reported about our incumbent President, and it furthers the divide between him and the people he most needs to rely on for advice and for the execution of his orders.
Perhaps the only remedy is to quit, and then avail oneself of the full range of First Amendment rights, which are, properly in my view, somewhat curtailed for those on active duty. But if that is the answer, we risk losing the best and brightest just when we need them most.
Instead, the military should adopt a formal Dissent Channel, modeled on the program at our Department of State and emulated at the U.S. Agency for International Development.
Foreign Service officers, like their counterparts in the military, often serve in harsh and dangerous places. Like members of the armed forces, they are expected to move frequently throughout their careers, leavening any prejudices and expanding their knowledge and expertise. And like those in the military, they serve under a peer-competitive promotion system.
The State Department has a long-standing tradition of encouraging Foreign Service officers to speak out if they have serious policy differences with the administration. Within the formal Dissent Channel, they are protected against any form of reprisal for expressing their views. The protection is real.
Some argue that in recent years the Dissent Channel has lost some of its punch. If true, it could be because it is a victim of its own success; there is no longer a need to use this protected mechanism when robust debate is encouraged as the order of the day. Yet only recently, 51 employees, many of them career diplomats, used the Dissent Channel to signify their strong disagreement with the Obama administration’s policy toward Syria, making the case in favor of targeted air strikes, which the administration has refused to undertake.
The American Foreign Service Association, the professional association of Foreign Service officers, has a parallel award system for Constructive Dissent, and some of the most distinguished and senior officers in the Foreign Service are the proud recipients of these awards. A recent awardee was Theodore Lyng, who objected to the State Department’s policy of excluding conservative Muslim leaders in Indonesia from interfaith dialog, pointing out that such dialog would be futile if this group was unable to participate.
It will be a tough sell if the Defense Department establishes a similar program. We expect our military to obey orders, not question them. Articulating policy concerns, however, is a far cry from disobeying an order, and the people who serve in today’s armed forces get this.
The best way to launch such a program, in addition to having the same safeguards that State does, is for a few brave senior officers to step up and say, “Follow me.” I have no doubt that when they set the example, others will indeed follow.