More

Featuring fresh takes and real-time analysis from HuffPost's signature lineup of contributors
Steven G. Brant

Steven G. Brant

Posted: June 22, 2010 06:20 PM

What President Obama Should Do With Gen. McChrystal

What's Your Reaction:

The lack of respect for civilian authority demonstrated by General McChrystal and his staff - on the record and over an extended period of time - is, in my opinion, all the justification President Obama needs to fire General McChrystal.

However, I believe this behavior is symptomatic of a larger underlying "disease": a breakdown in the relationship between the civilian side of American society and the military-industrial complex that has been catalyzed by the fact that America is basically on a permanent war-time footing.

America has been "at war" for so long.. and our military (and their friends in the corporate sector) have been "keeping America safe" for so many years... that I think those in the upper ranks of the military-industrial complex now think they "know it all". I think the reason General McChrystal doesn't respect President Obama, Vice President Biden, and others is that a larger mindset I will call "The Pentagon Knows Best" has taken over (or, I should say, is trying to take over) America.

For this reason, I do not think President Obama should fire General McChrystal. I don't think firing him will solve the underlying cause of the "mindset problem" that significantly influences how General McChrystal feels about his civilian commanders. (And, yes, I have heard that General McChrystal has been an outspoken, "push the limits of what's acceptable behavior" kind of guy since he first joined the military. But remember, we know that his staff shares his feelings.)

Rather than fire him, I believe President Obama should reassign General McChrystal to an entirely new position created especially for him. I believe President Obama should put General McChrystal in charge of returning the military-industrial complex to civilian control.

General McChrystal should be in charge of a very public (as in public hearings covered by C-Span) task force that (a) identifies all the ways in which the military-industrial complex has corrupted our system of democracy (and our system of capitalism) and (b) proposes the necessary remedies for returning both the military and those corporations that design and build all the things that "keep America safe" to the control of "we, the people".

I don't know how many of you remember how our troops in Iraq were forced to fight with inadequately armored HumVees and other equipment, but that was just one sign that the military-industrial complex is out of control. I'm sure there are many, many others.

Just as "only Nixon could go to China", I believe only someone like General McChrystal can take the military-industrial complex apart and put it back together in a way that eliminates the ego-driven mental "virus" that has "infected" its upper ranks.

In the motion picture "Gandhi", there is a wonderful scene in which a soldier from one religious tradition is forced to raise the orphaned child of a family from the opposite religion in that opposite religion... the religion that soldier has just been fighting against. It's a brilliant form of "punishment", because it forces the soldier to learn the traditions of the religion he hates... ostensibly for the benefit of an orphan. You can imagine how that would leave the soldier a changed man.

Well, for that same reason (that General McChrystal will be left a changed man), I see this as the perfect punishment for him.

(By the way, if you haven't seen the movie "Gandhi", I highly reccommend it. Here's a link to the trailer.)

We in America have many serious challenges ahead. And I believe that one of them is dealing with the unintended consequences of having been at war for so long. And, in my opinion, one of those unintended consequences is that our top protectors (like General McChrystal) and their corporate partners have begun to forget just who - and what - they are protecting.

I hope President Obama sees the systemic nature of General McChrystal's (and his staff's) behavior as I do. Because if he does, President Obama can use this opportunity to begin to restore the balance between the military and civilian sectors of American society... to rid the military-industrial complex of this "virus" that is a very real threat to the health and well-being of our democracy and our economy.

 
 
 

Follow Steven G. Brant on Twitter: www.twitter.com/SteveBrant

 
 
  • Comments
  • 116
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Bloggers
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3  Next ›  Last »  (3 total)
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
sherifffruitfly
04:12 PM on 06/23/2010
I look forward to seeing a new post from you about how Obama's decision to reinforce the principle of civilian command of the military was a poor one.
photo
HUFFPOST BLOGGER
Steven G. Brant
Social Systems Scientist
04:27 PM on 06/23/2010
Now why would you think I'd be planning on writing about that? Civilian command of the military is a core principle of our democracy. Control of the military-industrial complex by "we, the people" is just going to be a bit more complicated to achieve.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
sherifffruitfly
06:02 PM on 06/23/2010
"For this reason, I do not think President Obama should fire General McChrystal."

That's why I think that. Anything short of canning him, and the incessant buzz would be "who runs things?". And you know it.

Now there is absolutely no uncertainty about who controls the military. The President does.

So instead of 2 problems (civilian control over the military and the MIC issue), we have one. That's an improvement. An improvement not guaranteed by your superslickrick bank shot idea.
photo
SemperVeritas
Truth be told
12:51 PM on 06/23/2010
A superb idea. Is it workable? Or is the Military-
Industrial-Congressional Complex so firmly rooted
in our economy and polity that no amount of
reworking will substantially change anything???
photo
HUFFPOST BLOGGER
Steven G. Brant
Social Systems Scientist
03:37 PM on 06/23/2010
Thanks for the compliment. As I just wrote to Disciple1, there's a book called "The Complex" by Nick Turse that's worth checking out. Any system can be changed, if a group is organized in such a way that it has the influence necessary to do so. There are instances throughout history of people saying "That will never happen", and then "that" does. The primary requirement: Never Give Up! (I believe that's a quote from Winston Churchill. But it's also the belief of a great many people, including me.)
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Disciple1
To err is human;To disagree with me is ignorant.
12:22 PM on 06/23/2010
Outstanding article! I don't happen to agree that McChrystal should stay in uniform under ANY scenario. However, Brant has accurately measured the deleterious effects of the 'military industrial complex's" overwhelming impact upon nearly every phase of America's economic portrait. Additionally, the author has laid out a very astute and pragmatic alternative for utilization of the general's organizing talents. That said, I want Stanley M. to be banished to the far corners of the retirement community. Don't feel sorry for him, the republican establishment will find a post-debacle position for him as an Obama-bashing lobbyist, candidate or officeholder.
photo
HUFFPOST BLOGGER
Steven G. Brant
Social Systems Scientist
03:32 PM on 06/23/2010
Thanks for the compliment. Of course, Gen. McChrystal is gone now. And the military-industrial complex remains. Nick Turse wrote a book about it fairly recently, called "The Complex". Worth checking out.
12:20 PM on 06/23/2010
While reading the comments on blogs and twitter after this story first broke, I realize how far away the population as a whole, including myself, has gotten away from having any real knowledge of how military rules differ from civilian. So many view this insubordination in business or their job terms. Such as, well my boss would do this...but unless your boss is POTUS, and you're a general, it's irrelevant.
Both sides, in an era voluntary military service, need to understand each other more. When the draft was in effect, at least you had most men having some real exposure to military ways-not now.
12:13 PM on 06/23/2010
A teachable moment? Do we really care if McChrystal reforms? Probably-it goes beyond him.
Call it the Eisenhower Civilian/Military Transition Commission. Rich-after badmouthing the civs.
How about busting him a star too.
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
hollybork
11:23 AM on 06/23/2010
This is a thought provoking and insightful article. Best I have read on the McChrystal controvery. Thank you, Mr. Brant

Reading the excerpts from Rolling Stone, I like McChrystal and respect his courage. I am not appalled by his staff's sarcasm or frustrations. They are at war!

Honestly, we don't know what is really happening here. What is McChrystal's chief doubt?
His attitude towards the "team" suggests everyone isn't on the same page; that is symptomatic of a failed mission concept. Can the mission be re-thought?

Who is in control of the hidden levers of power? Is no one in control? Does Gen. McChrystal think this war is unwinnable?

McChrystal seems like a fine soldier, a person absolutely dedicated to his men, with a mission impossible. Does he think he could catch bin lauden with more men, another, altered objective, or does he think we should be in Pakistan, not Afghanistan?

Obama and McChrystal couldn't be more opposite. Can someone like Obama run a war? Can McChrystal run public policy? No. But both can tell the truth. Where does each think we are, where should we be, what resources and man would it take? As President, I would want to spend a whole day with McChrystal, no holds barred, frankness straight out, an LISTEN.

With insight from McChrystal, POTUS can intelligently reassess the mission, its length & its probable costs. He needs to know what the percentages are of win/lose, and he can decide if it is worth risking.
photo
HUFFPOST BLOGGER
Steven G. Brant
Social Systems Scientist
03:29 PM on 06/23/2010
Thanks for the compliment. Yes, both Obma and McChrystal could tell the truth.. to each other and to the nation. Peter Drucker famously said "We are getting better and better at doing the wrong things. We have to start doing the right things, even if we do them poorly at first."
These days, we aren't doing a lot of the things we need to start doing. A large dose of truth-telling would really help.
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
hollybork
04:17 PM on 06/23/2010
Peter Drucker is one of my heroes, Mr. Brant. Are you psychic, or what? hahaha.

Seriously, what is your take on Petreus taking over command in Afghanistan?
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
lilchas
11:11 AM on 06/23/2010
Reigning in the MIC is out of the box thinking. Which is one reason this won't happen. Another is that if the President does not fire this guy, he will be slapping the rest of his team and the grunts on the ground in the face. As journalist Thomas Rick said today, Commanders-in Chief have often sacked Generals. He says it is time to renew the tradition.

this won't happen.
10:29 AM on 06/23/2010
The dismantling of the MIC can only happen by the will of the people. And lately the average Joe has been scared to death of a terrorist attack. There is no will of the people to live lives of peace and to reap the benefits of a small defense department.
Gen McChrystal ought to resign, the Defense Department ought to be renamed the War Dept. and the wars ought to be ended immediately.
Other than that I like your idea. It is good to be a dreamer.
Aimlow Joe was here.
http://www.aimlow.com
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
11:00 AM on 06/23/2010
You are exactly right. "Defense" is not the appropriate name for the department which is chock full of those who perish in peace time and must have war in order to advance in rank at a pace to meet their expectations. Eisenhower was a mere major when WWII broke out. He became a five star general in just five short years. Presidents have come to use war to mask inadequacies, our most recent president being a shining example. He was headed for the toilet before the towers elevated him to what he quickly called himself, a "war president", after which he promptly cooked up a sham of a war against a country that had nothing to do with the towers. The evidence upon which he based his action will go down in history as shamefully contrived for base motives. We are a better country than this and we'd better start acting like it.
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
hollybork
11:25 AM on 06/23/2010
Aimlow, this is a very insightful post. You have gone right to the heart of the matter.
Let me be your first fan.
10:11 AM on 06/23/2010
This was made possible by independent reporting from Rolling Stone. Not the garbage we get fed by the networks and CNN. We need more independent reporting.

Vote to give the front row seat in the White House briefing room vacated by Helen Thomas to National Public Radio.

http://www.petitiononline.com/nprfront/petition.html
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
lilchas
11:14 AM on 06/23/2010
Why NPR? The network has a taboo on using the word "torture" in reference to US torture.Give it to Rolling Stone or Democracy Today. :)
10:06 AM on 06/23/2010
A demotion would send a strong message. I like it.
photo
HUFFPOST BLOGGER
Nelson Montana
Artist, Author, Composer
10:00 AM on 06/23/2010
Obama can't just make this go away. He's been disrespected...HARD. But it's also a microcosm of the general attitude towards Obama. He should take heed.

It started with going to town hall meetings to get opinions of health care. Then it was caving to the insurance companies. His lack of decorum when dealing with British royalty. He couldn't get the Olympics. The global warming summit was a bust. The banks made a mockery of him. The Wall street guys miss meeting because of bad weather and he lets them slide. He let BP tell him what to do. A judge overrides his decision to close the wells.

Nobody is treating this guy seriously and it isn't just the Republicans filibustering.

Obama is still being treated like the "new kid" by the right and the left is excusing him for the same reason.

He better turn it around fast or he's going to see the wheels fall completely of the wagon.

Making sure that money from BP is secured might be a good first step. So far, it's just a promise -- like everything else. And it seems both Obama's promises an the one that are made to him don't have a whole lot of merit.
11:23 AM on 06/23/2010
Your comment has so much hot air to it! That's how you see his presidency and you're entitled to your opinion, even if it's wrong! His problem is that he thought he could reason with white men! That's his biggest problem!
photo
HUFFPOST BLOGGER
Nelson Montana
Artist, Author, Composer
11:59 AM on 06/23/2010
madatnewsmedia-- Your comment has to be the most vile, racist remark I've heard in some time.
11:24 AM on 06/23/2010
I could not have put it better myself!!! Excellent
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
09:52 AM on 06/23/2010
The absolute power of a general officer is an easily corruptible element and it requires a larger man than McChrystal to possess it. Our system of government was clearly set up to require that the military be subordinate to the civilian government, like it or not. This man thinks that because he does not like the civilian government, he need not be subordinate. This is West Point 101. You are subordinate to the president and he should fire you when you violate that rule. Ask the greatest army strategist we ever had, General Douglas MacArthur, who made the same mistake and was duly fired.
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
hollybork
11:32 AM on 06/23/2010
Good points. Favved.
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
keramos
Who are the brain police?
09:28 AM on 06/23/2010
What Eisenhower was originally going to call it is what it really should be known as and that is

"The Military Industrial and Political Complex."

Too much complicity between all three and it's breaking this country. End it now!
09:21 AM on 06/23/2010
Dear Steven,

Although you brand yourself as a "social systems scientist" you must remember that "society" is in its infancy and human nature has been evolving for hundreds of thousands of years. Reading the article in rolling stone reveals that the military side regards itself correctly as the "men" in the relationship as they are the ones giving and occasionally taking bullets while the civilian side sends emasculating emails. The good general believes, correctly, that in nature the politicians would be lamps sent to a special forces slaughter.
09:24 AM on 06/23/2010
"lambs".
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
hollybork
11:33 AM on 06/23/2010
The lamps they send are phosphorous tipped tactical explosive devices, and other atrocities.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
5JackW5
09:03 AM on 06/23/2010
spoken like a true "social systems scientist". While I agree McChrystal should be fired for blatant disrespect of the Office of President I disagree with the conclusion that the military must be turned over to "civilian" control. But by disrespecting the Office, McChrystal succeeded in pointing out what civilian control begets in the field: dead soldiers. Civilian control equals sometimes weak leaders who are unable to make decisions and who half heartedly commit half of the troops needed to do a job. We witnessed this in Obama v McChrystal earlier this year. I commend Gen. McChrystal for pointing out the administration's obvious lack of commitment to win
11:07 AM on 06/23/2010
Um, the military has always been under civilian control. That'd be Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
lilchas
11:18 AM on 06/23/2010
5Jack
Civilian control is US constitutional law and tradition. Get over it.