by George Leard

Created on: June 30, 2010   Last Updated: July 02, 2010

Was General Mc Chrystal removal the appropriate response by Obama?

General McChrystal breached a major organizational principle called unity of command, and was rightly removed from his position by President Barak Obama.

Under unity of command, there is one boss and all other reporting personnel are obligated to speak the same language, in the pursuit of previously established goals and objectives. Failure to do this, will only lead to disunity, lack of confidence, lowering of morale, and even loss of life, especially in military environments.

The General breached this rule, by speaking out of turn to reporter Michael Hasting of Rolling Stone Magazine. He was quoted as calling members of the White house the real enemy, and according to Admiral Mullen, all military personnel are accountable to their civilian leader and must show respect. He went on further to say, that leaders who lose the confidence of their civilian leaders must step down.

As commander of the arm forces in Afghanistan, the General was expected to play a key role in achieving the stated military goals and objectives, but breached the rules associated with this position, by publicly showing that he was not a team player, thereby exposing division in the administration. Such action leads to breakdown in trust, and lack of confidence in his future ability to do the job, and the President and his cabinet, has every right to remove him immediately.

The General’s action also goes to the core of the Presidents leadership as Commander in Chief. If he is seen as weak, indecisive, tentative and unable to inspire the leadership of the army, his chances of re-election will obviously go out of the window, therefore he had to take steps to remove him from the position as soon as possible.

There should not have been the case of the general speaking to a reporter off the record, knowing the fickle nature of the news business, where one article can make the difference between a great career, and an ordinary one for any news media employee. General McChrystal showed a very irresponsible nature that should not be evident in a man holding such a sensitive position, and deserved to be removed from his position.

This irresponsible behavior was not the first time, as in 2009, while in London, the General spoke out of turn regarding the request he made for the additional 30,000 troops required for the surge, and caused embarrassment to the Obama Administration.

The President must have taken both actions into consideration, in making his decision, but there is also an upside to the issue, in that General McChrystal is an expert only in special operations, and not commanding large scale military operations. General Petraus, who has replaced him, is more suitable for the role, in that he was responsible for the successful surge operations in Iraq, and should do well in this almost familiar role.

The sacking of the General therefore, was an appropriate action, in that it shows the President was in charge, and will not accept toxic and irresponsible behaviors that threaten the safety of the troops, as well as the nation itself. This action going forward, will also serve as examples to others who may contemplate such actions, as well as to re-establish the reputation of the military, as one of the institutions with the highest levels of discipline in the land.

Learn more about this author, George Leard.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.