Ethical issues in military operations: a ten-year analysis

McChrystal

The problem facing General McChrystal is that he forgot (or never knew) the rule regarding the making of remarks or comments that denigrate a superior officer. Such a mistake is not only an ethical misstep, it is also expressly prohibited in Article 88, which states that commissioned officers are prohibited from verbal or written language denigrating military officers, or political legislatures, governors or other officials including the Chief Executive of the United States (in this case Barak Hussein Obama). If McChrystal had concentrated on what he knows best (being a leader of men) he most likely would have never found himself in a situation that called for his resignation. From all reports, it seems as if McChrystal was a very hands-on leader who cared for his troops.

One report found that "the instincts that he (McChrystal) developed during five years in the cloistered, secret world of Joint Special Operations Command simply did not serve him well at a strategic-level headquarters overseeing an alliance of 150,000 troops and a massive counterinsurgency campaign in Afghanistan" (Kitfield, 2010, p. 3). The situation could have come about due to the unprecedented audience given to the Rolling Stone reporter who wrote the article that initiated the furor. This too was a mistake in judgment that a field commander never should make, after all it is a reporter's duty to report. That error, coupled with the fact that McChrystal and his aides were fairly open in their disdain for the civilian overseers (the Obama administration) was what ultimately led to McChrystal's downfall. Kitfield wrote that "the Rolling Stone article suggests that the culture that developed inside McChrystal's team was one in which aides felt free to show great disdain for civilian authority without fear of rebuke from the boss, and with almost no understanding of the protocols and ground rules that govern a reporter's coverage" (p. 3). McChrystal's lack of understanding regarding the protocols and ground rules could be directly linked to the fact that he was a soldier first (which is why his men would follow him so loyally) and a civilian second.

Even Barak Obama lauded his reputation as one of the 'Nation's finest soldiers'. In Obama's remarks about the McChrystal's resignation he states that McChrystal's reputation is "founded upon his extraordinary dedication, his deep intelligence, and his love of country" (Obama, 2010, p. 1). McChrystal's love of country and extraordinary dedication were not what was at issue, however. The issue was that Obama could not have a high-ranking military leader questioning the President's actions, or denigrating the President's character (or lack thereof). If McChrystal had a troop questioning his authority or his actions, McChrystal would have likely taken the same actions as did Obama. Obama acknowledged this when he said "the strength and greatness of our military is rooted in the fact that this code applies equally to newly enlisted privates and to the general officer who commands them" (p. 2). Undermining one's superior officer(s) is just not acceptable behavior in the military, or even in civilian life for that matter. Such conduct is frowned upon especially when it comes to conducting a war. As Obama himself states "the conduct represented in the recently published article does not meet the standard that should be set by a commanding general…it undermines the civilian control of the military that is at the core of our democratic system…and it erodes the trust that's necessary for our team to work together to achieve our objectives" (Executive Branch, 2010).

The trust that Obama refers to was especially important in this specific case.

Obama was elected to President with no practical experience whatsoever, that coupled with his lack of knowledge concerning foreign affairs was evident in the manner in which he responded to military actions from the moment he took office. Having a leading military commander question his indecisive nature and abilities to wage war, not only undermined the President but could have been a contributing factor to ongoing problems in Afghanistan, especially if no immediate actions were taken regarding the remarks. Obama had to do what he did or face even more turmoil, distrust and scorn.

It is interesting to note that McChrystal, when questioned as to his comments states that "it is my responsibility, my duty, my sacred duty' to tell the unvarnished truth to his leaders, but then to carry out their orders" (Thomas, Barry, Smalley, 2009, p. 29). What is noticed in the Thomas et al. article is that McChrystal believes it is his duty to tell the unvarnished truth to his leaders, but in this case he went too far. If he had adhered to telling the truth to only his leaders, he might have been okay, but he not only told the truth to his leaders, he also told the truth to anyone who was intelligent enough to read a magazine or listen to a newscast. What is said in private can be kept private even if it is said to the President of the United States. What is said in the public media however, cannot be kept from anyone who wishes to read, hear, or view it, and that is the biggest mistake of them all.

There are of course other actions that could have been taken by the President in this matter. One action could be to privately reprimand McChrystal and at the same time making the reprimand a permanent part of McChrystal's military record. This probably would not have worked as effectively as the resignation, since it could be seen as a very weak response to a very serious matter. Of course, Obama could also have knocked McChrystal down a grade or two and fined him for speaking out of turn.