There is an interesting article in today’s Washington Postby Yale Law School Professor Bruce Ackerman who is of the belief that General Stanley McChrystal remarks in a speech in London were insubordination. The professor said in his opinion piece, that:
McChrystal was almost cavalier in dismissing this point. After praising his superiors for encouraging straight talk, he laughingly suggested that “they may change their minds and crush me some day.” This is precisely backward: Generals shouldn’t need to be told that it is wrong to lecture their presidents in public. Perhaps McChrystal was misled by the precedent set by Gen. David Petraeus, who strongly supported President Bush’s military surge in Iraq in 2007. 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.
The question I pose, is Professor Ackerman right or in giving the speech General McChrystal did nothing wrong and his action are in keeping with the accepted professional conduct of the United States Armed Forces? I would recommend reading some of the comments left on the Washington Post site before responding–your choice.
