And that's what I think he should get -- though I haven't seen much protest or even much awareness of his breach of protocol. That's because we've grown accustomed over the past couple of decades to think of generals as the deciders, not presidents.
We're not only wrong, we're so wrong that conservative commentator (and military man), Andrew Bacevich, has warned on a number of occasions the risks we face when we let generals make political decisions. We're facing yet another lapse in judgment which threatens democracy -- or the shreds of democracy we cling to.
Bruce Ackerman takes on this issue in today's Washington Post. Briefly, here's how McChrystal crossed the line from becoming adviser to the president to pressuring the president to adopt his policies.
What McChrystal has done is what David Petraeus so carefully avoided, as Bruce Ackerman points out. "Though Petraeus publicly endorsed the surge, this happened only after Bush made his decision. Petraeus was backing up his commander in chief, not trying to preempt him."In a speech in London on Thursday, Gen. Stanley McChrystal publicly intervened in the debate over Afghanistan.
When asked whether he would support [Vice President Biden's proposed change of focus], he said, "The short answer is: No."
He brushed off any suggestion that "Confidentiality is a condition for candid communications between commanders and the commander in chief".
McChrystal used the Washington Post to lobby for his position on the war -- "a plain violation of the principle of civilian control."
Let's not even get into the issue of skin tones here. McChrystal's attitude towards our elected leader, his arrogance and his willingness to drive a tank through any hole he can find in our own political system tell me he should be outta there. Sooner, better.
